Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8070 In Re: JAMES OTIS KELLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition. (CA-94-2295-MJG) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Otis Kelley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner has filed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8070 In Re: JAMES OTIS KELLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition. (CA-94-2295-MJG) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Otis Kelley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner has filed a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8070
In Re: JAMES OTIS KELLEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition.
(CA-94-2295-MJG)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Otis Kelley, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a
writ of prohibition in this court to order the district court to
reverse itself in an action in which the district court denied re-
lief to Petitioner. Mandamus, however, cannot serve as a substitute
for appeal. In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris, we grant the motions to deny the petition for the writ of
mandamus and for a writ of prohibition. 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