Filed: Feb. 14, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7689 In Re: THOMAS E. SMOLKA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-475) Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: February 14, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Smolka, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas E. Smolka petitions for writ of m
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7689 In Re: THOMAS E. SMOLKA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-475) Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: February 14, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Smolka, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas E. Smolka petitions for writ of ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7689
In Re: THOMAS E. SMOLKA,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-02-475)
Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: February 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas E. Smolka, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas E. Smolka petitions for writ of mandamus seeking
an order prohibiting the district court from activating an
alternate sentence, and disqualifying the district court judge from
further involvement in his case. We conclude that Smolka is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United
Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Smolka is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and grant Smolka’s motions to amend his petition and to
supplement the record, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus,
deny Smolka’s “emergency motion,” and deny all other pending
motions. 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 -