Filed: Nov. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1928 In re: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., petitions for a writ of m
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1928 In re: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., petitions for a writ of ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1928
In re: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order reversing dismissals of his actions
and appeals filed between 1997 and 2015. We conclude that
Wilder 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 (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), and 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 Wilder is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and
deny Wilder’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
2