In re: Gary Terry, No. 10-2410 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2410 In Re: GARY IVAN TERRY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:03-cr-00299-NCT-1) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Ivan Terry, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Ivan Terry petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court judge to: (1) vacate its orders denying Terry s motions for recusal; (2) vacate the order denying Terry s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion; and (3) grant Terry s motion for an evidentiary hearing. He has also filed an emergency motion seeking to have this court vacate the district court s order denying Terry s motion for recusal and vacate his conviction and sentence imposed in Missouri. We conclude that Terry is not entitled to relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Cir. Ass n, mandamus 860 is a F.2d drastic 135, 138 remedy extraordinary circumstances. (4th and should 1988). Further, be only used in Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is well-established that 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 Terry is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Terry s motion for emergency relief and we deny Terry s petition for a writ of mandamus. 2 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.