In re Tompkins

Fourth Circuit

In re Tompkins

550 F. App'x 157

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2206

StatusPublished

This text of 550 F. App'x 157 (In re Tompkins) 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 Tompkins, 550 F. App'x 157 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Wayne Tompkins petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking assistance from this court in enforcing any possible settlement this court may have issued in a prior appeal.

* 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 Tompkins 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

We grant Tompkins’ request for leave to file the petition.

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

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Wayne Tompkins petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking assistance from this court in enforcing any possible settlement this court may have issued in a prior appeal.

* 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 Tompkins 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

We grant Tompkins’ request for leave to file the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tompkins-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack