UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1425
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-1573
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:07-cv-03385-DKC)
Submitted: December 17, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Michelle
Bodley Radcliffe, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC,
Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action and ruling on related matters, and
the later order denying his motions to reconsider, for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis, and for transcripts at government
expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services & Leasing
Co., No. 8:07-cv-03385-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2010 & May 11,
2010).
We also deny Jarvis’ petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to recuse the magistrate judge and district judge who
ruled on his claims below. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy
and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.
U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (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). Jarvis has failed to
establish the grounds needed for relief. See Shaw v. Martin,
733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing grounds needed for
recusal). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4