In re Muldrow

Fourth Circuit

In re Muldrow

470 F. App'x 101

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 2012

DocketNo. 11-2039

StatusPublished

This text of 470 F. App'x 101 (In re Muldrow) 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 Muldrow, 470 F. App'x 101 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Muldrow petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the installation of air conditioning units at his prison segregation facility. We conclude that Muldrow is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). The relief sought by Muldrow is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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:

Donnell Muldrow petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the installation of air conditioning units at his prison segregation facility. We conclude that Muldrow is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). The relief sought by Muldrow is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F. App'x 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-muldrow-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack