In re: Beverly Hennager

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion to expedite decision [1000075841-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000064155-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000090036]. Mailed to: Beverly Hennager. [17-1498]

Appeal: 17-1498

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1498

In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER,
Petitioner.

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

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly L. Hennager, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 30, 2017

Appeal: 17-1498

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Beverly L. Hennager has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which she asks
this court to order the district court to disburse to her earnings derived from the sale of
certain property, and to have voided various district court orders with which she
disagrees. We conclude that Hennager 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). Mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal, however. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2007). 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).
It is clear that Hennager is using mandamus as a substitute for appeal and, in any
event, she has not established a clear right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for writ of mandamus and deny as moot her motion to expedite. 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