Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1540 In re: JEROME MCFADDEN, Petitioner. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:12-cv-01627-MGL) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome McFadden, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1540 In re: JEROME MCFADDEN, Petitioner. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:12-cv-01627-MGL) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome McFadden, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1540
In re: JEROME MCFADDEN,
Petitioner.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(0:12-cv-01627-MGL)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome McFadden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome McFadden petitions for a writ of prohibition,
seeking an order directing prison guards to cease retaliatory
conduct against him. We conclude that McFadden is not entitled
to the requested relief. A writ of prohibition is a drastic
remedy that should be granted only where the petitioner’s right
to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re Vargas,
723
F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). As that is not the case here,
we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2