Case Name: Robert Aponte NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas MAGYAR, Detective; City of Alexandria, Virginia; David Joseph Tippett; D.J. Flood, Detective; James C. Bartlett, Detective; Detective Cutting, Badge 1644; T.B. Kennedy, Detective; Detective Mammarella, Badge 1340; Edward Hruneni; Robert E. Smith, Detective; Harold Duquette, Detective; Jennifer Pollard, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-appellees. In re Robert Aponte NORTH, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-28
Citations: 5 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: Nos. 00-7226, 01-6028
Parties: Robert Aponte NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas MAGYAR, Detective; City of Alexandria, Virginia; David Joseph Tippett; D.J. Flood, Detective; James C. Bartlett, Detective; Detective Cutting, Badge 1644; T.B. Kennedy, Detective; Detective Mammarella, Badge 1340; Edward Hruneni; Robert E. Smith, Detective; Harold Duquette, Detective; Jennifer Pollard, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-appellees. In re Robert Aponte NORTH, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 122–122

Head Matter:
Robert Aponte NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas MAGYAR, Detective; City of Alexandria, Virginia; David Joseph Tippett; D.J. Flood, Detective; James C. Bartlett, Detective; Detective Cutting, Badge 1644; T.B. Kennedy, Detective; Detective Mammarella, Badge 1340; Edward Hruneni; Robert E. Smith, Detective; Harold Duquette, Detective; Jennifer Pollard, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-appellees. In re Robert Aponte NORTH, Petitioner.
Nos. 00-7226, 01-6028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
Decided Feb. 28, 2001.
Robert Aponte North, pro se.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert A. North has two proceedings pending before this court. In No. 00-7226, North appeals the district court order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. North v. Magyar, No. CA-00-1019 AM (E.D. Va. filed July 5, 2000, entered July 11, 2000"; filed Aug. 14, 2000, entered Aug. 15, 2000).
In No. 01-6028, North petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to allow North to take depositions of some of the witnesses to the underlying facts of the above ease, for appointment of counsel, and for preparation of a transcript at government expense. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). A petitioner must establish that his right to the relief sought is clear and indisputable. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).
We have now affirmed the district court's action in No. 00-7226. In addition, we previously dismissed the appeal from the district court's denial of North's motion to vacate the underlying conviction. United States v. North, No. 00-7144/7273, 2000 WL 1875895 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 2000) (unpublished). North has not shown that his right to the relief sought is indisputable and clear. Therefore, we deny North's petition for mandamus, and his motions for appointment of counsel and preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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.
No. 00-7226 — AFFIRMED.
No. 01-6028 — PETITION DENIED.