Filed: Feb. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-752 In Re: RESTONEY ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (CA-96-1017-6) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Restoney Robinson brought this mandamus pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-752 In Re: RESTONEY ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (CA-96-1017-6) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Restoney Robinson brought this mandamus peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-752
In Re: RESTONEY ROBINSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (CA-96-1017-6)
Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Restoney Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Restoney Robinson brought this mandamus petition complaining
about the district court's handling of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)
action he brought concerning disciplinary action taken against him
after he tested positive for marijuana use in a random prison drug
test. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommenda-
tion and denied relief in that action, and on appeal, this court
affirmed. See Robinson v. Atkins, No. 97-6773 (4th Cir. Sept. 17,
1997) (unpublished). Apparently, in this mandamus petition, Robin-
son seeks to revisit the concerns he raised in the § 1983 action.
Where there is another available remedy, mandamus relief is not
available. See In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal. See In re United
Steelworkers of America,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Robin-
son could have raised these claims in an appeal from the § 1983
action. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. 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