In Re: Charles Major, Jr., No. 12-2240 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2240 In re: CHARLES R. MAJOR, JR., a/k/a Charles R. Major, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (6:12-cv-00183-GRA) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles R. Major, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles R. Major petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to force the district court to act on motions that were prejudicially ignored. We conclude that Major is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief U.S. F.3d is Kerr circumstances. 394, 509, 402 516-17 available (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. the States States 2003). v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). used as a substitute for appeal. United United Cir. when v. Mandamus may not be In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record reveals that on September 28, 2012, the district recommendation and court entered adopted summary the magistrate judgment in favor judge s of the Defendants, explicitly denying as moot all other pending nondispositive motions. Because Major has other means of pursuing the relief he seeks in mandamus, namely, to appeal the district court s order, mandamus relief is not available. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. deny Major s request that the district 2 judge and in We magistrate judge be recused. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.