History
  • No items yet
midpage
In Re: Albert Burgess v.
687 F. App'x 282
| 4th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Charles Burgess, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the delivery of tapes of proceedings occurring in connection with his criminal prosecution. We conclude that Burgess 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). Mandamus 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 Burgess is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a 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: Albert Burgess v.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: Apr 28, 2017
Citation: 687 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: 17-1172
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.