Court Opinion

ID: 9960030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-14 21:00:34.396413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:06.376651
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1049      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/12/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-1049

        In re: GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
        District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:95-cr-00119-MOC-SCR-1)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 12, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gerald Damone Hopper, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1049         Doc: 17         Filed: 04/12/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                  After Gerald Damone Hopper allegedly violated the terms of his supervised release,

        his probation officer filed a revocation petition, prompting a magistrate judge to issue a

        warrant for Hopper’s arrest. Hopper then moved to recuse the judge and quash the warrant,

        correctly noting that the judge had, decades earlier, served as the lead prosecutor in

        Hopper’s underlying criminal case. The district court entered an order denying the

        motions. Hopper now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court

        vacating the district court’s order. We conclude that Hopper is not entitled to mandamus

        relief.

                  Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).

                  “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself

        in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.

        § 455(a). Assuming without deciding that the magistrate judge’s recusal was warranted,

        we conclude that any error was cured when a second magistrate judge independently

        concluded that the allegations in the revocation petition were supported by probable cause.

        See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862 (1988) (explaining that

        § 455(a) violations are subject to harmless error review).

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1049      Doc: 17        Filed: 04/12/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

              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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

                                                    3