In Re: Arthur Rodger

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999255128-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03778-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303272]. Mailed to: Arthur Rodgers. [13-2472]

Appeal: 13-2472

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2472

In Re:

ARTHUR RODGERS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:12-cv-03778-CCB)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Rodgers, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2472

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In
Rodgers

this

asks

petition

that

we

for

a

order

writ

the

of

district

mandamus,
court

Arthur

to

take

appropriate action to ensure that prison officials properly mail
Rodgers’ legal correspondence.
the

district

Rodgers’
relief,

court’s

motions
to

for

appoint

Rodgers also seeks our review of

October
a

16,

preliminary

counsel,

to

2013

order,

injunction,

compel

which
for

discovery,

denied

immediate
and

for

default judgment, and to allow an appeal from that order.

a
We

conclude that Rodgers is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances.

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,

516-17

(4th

Cir.

2003).

Further,

mandamus

relief

is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Rodgers has not demonstrated his clear right to the
relief sought, as the district court’s docket reveals that many
of

his

filings

have

been

received

and

properly

docketed.

Further, we decline to review the district court’s October 16,
2013 order by way of mandamus because mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal.

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503

F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
2

Appeal: 13-2472

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2014

Accordingly,
mandamus.
legal
before

we

Pg: 3 of 3

deny

the

petition

for

writ

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

3