Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-02303/USCOURTS-ca4-10-02303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anna Olszowy
Petitioner
Christopher Leonard Olszowy
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2303

In Re: CHRISTOPHER LEONARD OLSZOWY; ANNA OLSZOWY,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(9:09-cv-01662-PMD-bm)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Leonard Olszowy; Anna Olszowy, Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-2303 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/03/2011 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher and Anna Olszowy petition for a writ of 

mandamus seeking an order invalidating the district court’s 

order denying their motion for a stay. We conclude that the 

Olszowys are 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 the Olszowys is not available by 

way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-2303 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/03/2011 Pg: 2 of 2