Filed: Sep. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7031 In Re: LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-453-HNM) Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linwood Douglas Thorne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Linwood Douglas Thorne has
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7031 In Re: LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-453-HNM) Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linwood Douglas Thorne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Linwood Douglas Thorne has ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7031
In Re: LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-453-HNM)
Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linwood Douglas Thorne, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Linwood Douglas Thorne has filed a petition for a writ of man-
damus from this court seeking an order instructing the Respondent
to provide him with a copy of the transcript of the grand jury
proceeding that lead to Thorne’s indictment. Mandamus is a drastic
remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v.
United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus
relief is only available when there are no other means by which the
relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
See In re Catawba Indian Tribe of S. Carolina,
973 F.2d 1133, 1135
(4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, although we grant Thorne’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. Thorne’s mo-
tion to expedite this petition is now moot and is denied for that
reason. 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