In re: Kevin McDaniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999531429-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999547648-2], denying Motion for return of filing fees [999547651-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999555365-2]. Originating case numbers: 1:14-cv-03728-TLW, 1:14-cv-04197-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court. [999610643]. Mailed to: Kevin McDaniels. [15-1164]--[Docket Text Edited 06/29/2015 by ALC]

Appeal: 15-1164

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1164

In Re:

KEVIN WAYNE MCDANIELS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:14-cv-03728-TLW; 1:14-cv-04197-TLW)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Wayne McDaniels, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1164

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wayne McDaniels petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order directing the recusal of certain district court judges,
reopening of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), proceedings or his trial,
and the refund of filing fees he has paid. We conclude that
McDaniels 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).

The relief sought by McDaniels is not available by way of

mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petition and amended petitions

for writ of mandamus as well as McDaniels’ motion for return of
filing fees.

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.
PETITION DENIED

2