Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis

Fourth Circuit

Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis

100 F. App'x 910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2004

Docket04-1442

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 F. App'x 910 (Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis) 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

Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis, 100 F. App'x 910 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Morton M. Lapides, Sr. appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, which sought an order directing Chief Bankruptcy Judge Schnieder to act on a motion for recusal. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). The appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by a judgment is appeal. A petition for writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992).

Because Lapides fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis, No. CA-04-467-1-WDQ (D.Md. Mar. 8, 2004). Additionally, we affirm the district court’s order denying reconsideration. 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.

AFFIRMED

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Morton M. Lapides, Sr. appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, which sought an order directing Chief Bankruptcy Judge Schnieder to act on a motion for recusal. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). The appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by a judgment is appeal. A petition for writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992).

Because Lapides fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Lapides v. National City Bank of Minneapolis, No. CA-04-467-1-WDQ (D.Md. Mar. 8, 2004). Additionally, we affirm the district court’s order denying reconsideration. 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.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 F. App'x 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapides-v-national-city-bank-of-minneapolis-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack