In re: Jonathan Henslee, No. 14-1475 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1475 In re: JONATHAN HENSLEE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cv-00090-RJC) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Leigh Henslee, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Leigh an Henslee order petitions writ of district court to seeking expedite proceedings action. He also moves to amend his mandamus petition to compel his pending the a mandamus in compelling for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) the district court to reconsider its order denying his motions for default judgment. We grant Henslee s motion to amend, but we conclude that he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in Dist. extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 U.S. F.3d relief circumstances. is 394, 509, 402 516-17 available (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr Cir. when the v. United United States States 2003). v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). With regard to Henslee s request for an order from this court directing the district court to expedite proceedings, we find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Turning district to Henslee s court to request reconsider for its an order denial of compelling his motions the for default judgment, Henslee has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the amended petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.