Derek Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services and, No. 10-1425 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1425 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 10-1573 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:07-cv-03385-DKC) Submitted: December 17, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Michelle Bodley Radcliffe, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court s order dismissing his civil action and ruling on related matters, and the later order denying his motions to reconsider, for leave to appeal in expense. forma pauperis, for transcripts at government We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Co., and No. Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services & Leasing 8:07-cv-03385-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2010 & May 11, 2010). We also deny Jarvis petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to recuse the magistrate judge and district judge who ruled on his claims below. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, mandamus 333 relief F.3d is 509, 516-17 available only clear right to the relief sought. (4th Cir. when the 2003). Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Jarvis has failed to establish the grounds needed for relief. See Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing grounds needed for recusal). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.