UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2126
In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB)
Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beverly L. Hennager, Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a
writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the
district court and direct the district court judge to recuse
himself from the underlying dissolution action. Petitioners
have also filed a motion to expedite. We deny mandamus relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to 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). In fact, mandamus relief is available only
when there are no other means by which the relief sought could
be granted, see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517, and the party has
established they have a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought, see In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.
2001).
It is well established that mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97
(1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2007); see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. Although “a district
judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this
circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus[,]” a writ
of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the
district court abused its discretion when making the challenged
ruling.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987).
2
We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that
Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right
to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We
deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite. 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
3