In re Bowling

Fourth Circuit

In re Bowling

19 F. App'x 54

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 11, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1957

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. App'x 54 (In re Bowling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Bowling, 19 F. App'x 54 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence E. Bowling petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to disqualify himself and proceed no further in No. CA-01^6-2, currently pending in the Southern District of West Virginia. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A judge’s involvement in prior proceedings involving the petitioner ordinarily is not cause for granting the writ. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987). Here, we discern no grounds for granting the requested relief. We therefore deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence E. Bowling petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to disqualify himself and proceed no further in No. CA-01^6-2, currently pending in the Southern District of West Virginia. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A judge’s involvement in prior proceedings involving the petitioner ordinarily is not cause for granting the writ. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987). Here, we discern no grounds for granting the requested relief. We therefore deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. App'x 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bowling-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack