In re: Carol Pizzuto

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999084164-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999084162-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999084158-2]; denying Motion for writ of prohibition (FRAP 21) [999049725-2] in 13-1242; denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [999049758-2] in 13-1243, denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [999049793-2] in 13-1244, denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [999049814-2] in 13-1245 Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES,5:12-cv-00149-FPS-JES,5:12-cv-00155-FPS-JES,5:08-cv-00025-FPS-JSK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999160504]. Mailed to: Dennis Givens, Greg Givens, Carol Pizzuto. [13-1242, 13-1243, 13-1244, 13-1245]

Appeal: 13-1242

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1242

In re:

CAROL L. PIZZUTO; GREG GIVENS; DENNIS A. GIVENS,
Petitioners.

No. 13-1243

In re:

CAROL L. PIZZUTO; GREG GIVENS; DENNIS A. GIVENS,
Petitioners.

No. 13-1244

In re:

CAROL L. PIZZUTO; GREG GIVENS; DENNIS A. GIVENS,
Petitioners.

No. 13-1245

In re:

CAROL L. PIZZUTO; GREG GIVENS; DENNIS A. GIVENS,
Petitioners.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
(Nos. 5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES; 5:12-cv-00149-FPS-JES; 5:08-cv00025-FPS-JSK; 5:12-cv-00155-FPS-JES)

Appeal: 13-1242

Doc: 17

Submitted:

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

July 25, 2013

Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol L. Pizzuto, Greg Givens, Dennis, A. Givens, Petitioners
Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1242

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

cases,

Petitioners

have

filed

petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition seeking orders
requiring

removal

of

a

magistrate

judge

and

correction

alleged procedural errors in district court cases.

of

We conclude

that Petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

relief

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

clear right to the relief sought.

(1976);
(4th

only

Kerr

when

United

United

Cir.
the

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
used as a substitute for appeal.

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re: Lockheed Martin Corp.,

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Petitioners is not available by
way

of

mandamus.

Accordingly,

although

we

grant

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions.

leave

to

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIONS DENIED

3