History
  • No items yet
midpage
In Re: Matthew Davis v.
669 F. App'x 163
| 4th Cir. | 2016
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 PER CURIAM:

Matthew Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reinstate his direct appeal. We conclude that Davis 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).

Davis has not shown the existence of an extraordinary circumstance, nor has he shown that he has a clear right to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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

Case Details

Case Name: In Re: Matthew Davis v.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: Oct 12, 2016
Citation: 669 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: 16-1831
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.