Filed: Nov. 30, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2537 In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-2913-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 1998 Decided: November 30, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2537 In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-2913-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 1998 Decided: November 30, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2537
In Re: FRANK PAUL LUKACS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-2913-PJM)
Submitted: November 17, 1998 Decided: November 30, 1998
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
requesting that this court order the district court to: (1) vacate
its orders in two of Lukacs’ pending civil cases prohibiting the
parties from filing further pleadings or motions until the court is
able to dispose of motions currently pending; and (2) permit Lukacs
to file further pleading, motions, affidavits, and appeals. In this
mandamus petition, 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 ap-
peal. See In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). We therefore grant Lukacs’ motion to file an attachment to
his petition and deny Lukacs' petition for a 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