Filed: Nov. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2434 In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-3483-PJM) Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Paul Lukacs, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank Paul Lukac
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2434 In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-3483-PJM) Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Paul Lukacs, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank Paul Lukacs..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2434
In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-3483-PJM)
Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Paul Lukacs, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank Paul Lukacs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus re-
questing that this court order the district court to: (1) vacate
its order prohibiting the parties from filing further pleadings or
motions until such time as the district court is able to dispose of
motions currently pending; and (2) permit Lukacs to file further
pleading, motions, affidavits, and appeals. In this mandamus peti-
tion, Lukacs failed to establish that he has a clear right to the
relief sought and that no other remedy is adequate. See In re First
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further,
mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). We there-
fore deny Lukacs' petition for a writ of mandamus. Lukacs’ motion
for leave to file an attachment to his mandamus petition is
granted. 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