Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Beverly L. HENNAGER, Petitioner.
    No. 17-1498
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 9, 2017
    Decided: May 30, 2017
    Beverly L. Hennager, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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