In re: Hennager and Jennings

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999937598-2], denying Supplemental Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999971323-2]; denying Motion to expedite decision as moot [999982666-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999997260]. Mailed to: Hennager and Jennings. [16-2126]

Appeal: 16-2126

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2126

In Re:

BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS,
Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB)

Submitted:

December 9, 2016

Decided:

January 4, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly L. Hennager, Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2126

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a
writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the
district court and direct the district court judge to recuse
himself

from

the

underlying

dissolution

have also filed a motion to expedite.
Mandamus

is

a

drastic

extraordinary circumstances.

action.

Petitioners

We deny mandamus relief.

remedy

to

be

used

only

in

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 51617 (4th Cir. 2003).

In fact, mandamus relief is available only

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could
be granted, see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517, and the party has
established

they

have

a

clear

and

indisputable

right

to

the

relief sought, see In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.
2001).
It is well established that mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal.

Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97

(1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2007); see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517.

Although “a district

judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this
circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus[,]” a writ
of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the
district court abused its discretion when making the challenged
ruling.”

In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987).
2

Appeal: 16-2126

Doc: 11

We

have

Filed: 01/04/2017

reviewed

Pg: 3 of 3

Petitioners’

filings

and

conclude

that

Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right
to the relief sought.

Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief.

We

deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3