Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1735 In re: DARRON TILLISON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (1:15-cv-02013-ELH) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darron Tillison, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darron Tillison petitions for a writ of pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1735 In re: DARRON TILLISON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (1:15-cv-02013-ELH) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darron Tillison, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darron Tillison petitions for a writ of pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1735
In re: DARRON TILLISON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (1:15-cv-02013-ELH)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darron Tillison, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darron Tillison petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking
relief from the civil judgment obtained against him and his
employer. A writ of prohibition “is a drastic and extraordinary
remedy” that is available only when the petitioner has a clear
and indisputable right to the relief sought. In re Vargas,
723
F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). A writ of prohibition may not
be used as a substitute for appeal.
Id.
We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Tillison
has not made the requisite showing for issuance of the writ.
Accordingly, we deny the writ of prohibition. 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