Filed: May 05, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1014 In Re: JAMSHID FARSHIDI, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-56-2) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamshid Farshidi, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamshid Farshidi petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1014 In Re: JAMSHID FARSHIDI, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-56-2) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamshid Farshidi, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamshid Farshidi petitions ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1014
In Re: JAMSHID FARSHIDI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-03-56-2)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamshid Farshidi, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamshid Farshidi petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks
an order directing the district court to vacate its orders in his
employment discrimination action, disqualifying the judge involved
in the case, and compelling the Defendant to compensate him for
lost salary and benefits.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Assn.,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus
is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Farshidi 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
- 2 -