In Re: Douglas Charnock, Jr., No. 14-2100 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2100 In re: DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 2:14-CV-00229-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 18, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to stay the entry of judgment in his pending divorce proceeding in state court. We conclude that Charnock 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 v. (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr United Cir. when United States 2003). the States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). This mandamus court relief does against not state have jurisdiction officials, Gurley v. to grant Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does orders. not have jurisdiction to review final state court Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by Charnock is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Charnock’s motions to intervene and expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument 2 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 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.