In re: Robert E. Bennett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999332172-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999345027-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-10133 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999414626]. Mailed to: Robert Bennett. [14-1315]

Appeal: 14-1315

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/13/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1315

In Re:

ROBERT E. BENNETT,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:14-cv-10133)

Submitted:

June 13, 2014

Decided:

August 13, 2014

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Bennett, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1315

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/13/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert E. Bennett petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking

an

order

directing

immediate release.

the

district

court

to

order

his

We conclude that Bennett is not entitled to

mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

U.S.

F.3d

relief

circumstances.

is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

the

2003).

States

States

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.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

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

This court does not have

jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials,
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587
(4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final
state

court

orders,

Dist.

of

Columbia

Court

of

Appeals

v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Bennett is not available by way
of mandamus. *

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

*

To the extent Bennett’s filing could be construed as an
appeal of the proposed findings and recommendation entered by
the magistrate judge in his pending case in the district court,
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 14-1315

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/13/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the district
court has not issued a final order.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292
(2012).

3