In re: Ross Fiorani, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999646063-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999639026-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00667-LO-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999702216]. Mailed to: Ross Fiorani. [15-1904]

Appeal: 15-1904

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1904

In re: ROSS A. FIORANI, JR.,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00667-LO-JFA)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross A. Fiorani, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1904

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ross

A.

Fiorani,

Jr.,

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to remand his case
to the state court so that it can issue default judgments.

We

conclude that Fiorani 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).
relief.

We conclude that Fiorani is not entitled to mandamus
We further note that Fiorani has filed two appeals in

the underlying case.

See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351,

2007)

353

(4th

Cir.

(mandamus

may

not

be

used

as

a

substitute for appeal).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

we

dispense

with

contentions

deny

are

oral

the

petition

argument

adequately

for

writ

because

presented

in

of

the
the

mandamus.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2