In Re: Hennager and Jennings, No. 16-2126 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2126 In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS, Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB) Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beverly L. Hennager, Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the district court and direct the district court judge to recuse himself from the underlying dissolution have also filed a motion to expedite. Mandamus is a drastic extraordinary circumstances. action. Petitioners We deny mandamus relief. remedy to be used only in Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 51617 (4th Cir. 2003). In fact, mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517, and the party has established they have a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought, see In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). It is well established that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007); see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. Although “a district judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus[,]” a writ of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the district court abused its discretion when making the challenged ruling.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). 2 We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are 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.
