In Re: Lawrence Wilder, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999643549-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999641414-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999641413-2] Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704537]. Mailed to: Lawrence Wilder, Sr. [15-1928]

Appeal: 15-1928

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1928

In re: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1928

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence

Verline

Wilder,

Sr.,

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus seeking an order reversing dismissals of his actions
and

appeals

filed

between

1997

and

2015.

We

conclude

that

Wilder 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), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

In re

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Wilder is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and
deny Wilder’s motion to appoint counsel.

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