UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1983
DON BOYD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WELLS MARBLE &
HURST, PLLC; ROY H. LIDDELL; KEVIN A. ROGERS; SOUTHEASTERN
TRAINING CENTERS, Inc.; DANIEL COKER HORTON, & Bell PA; J.
WYATT HAZARD; CAROLYN CURRY SATCHER; J. T. ROBINSON;
DAVID L. REDD; W. STAN SULLIVAN; DOE CLERK ONE; DOE CLERK
TWO; DOE CLERK THREE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United
States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-1990
DON BOYD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CITY of COLUMBIA; STATE of SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY H. JOHNSON,
II,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-1996
DON BOYD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BI-LO, INCORPORATED; HUNTER & FOSTER PA; LAWRENCE M HUNTER,
JR.; SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-1998
DON BOYD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; WAL-MART SUPERCENTER,
INCORPORATED; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH; CLARENCE
DAVIS; AISHA S LUSK; CHRISTOPHER C GENOVESE; SOUTH
CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-03208-JFA; 3:11-cv-00013-JFA; 3:10-cv-
03209-JFA; 3:11-cv-00845-JFA)
2
No. 11-2143
In re: DON BOYD,
Petitioner.
No. 11-2144
In re: DON BOYD,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (3:10-cv-03209-JFA-PJG;
3:11-cv-00845-JFA)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 11-1983, 11-1990, 11-1996, 11-1998, affirmed; Nos. 11-2143,
11-2144, petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Boyd, Appellant/Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
We have consolidated six proceedings brought by Don
Boyd for consideration, and we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in all. In case numbers 11-1983, 11-1990, 11-1996, and
11-1998, Boyd appeals the district court’s orders adopting the
magistrate judge’s reports and denying relief on Boyd’s claims
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). We have reviewed
the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v.
KLLM Transport Servs., No. 3:10-cv-03208-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 12,
2011); Boyd v. City of Columbia, No. 3:11-cv-00013-JFA (D.S.C.
Aug. 12, 2011); Boyd v. Bi-Lo, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03209-JFA
(D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2011); Boyd v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No.
3:11-cv-00845-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2011).
In case numbers 11-2143 and 11-2144, Boyd seeks
mandamus relief directing the district court and the magistrate
judge in two of the above cases to provide additional citations
to the record. We conclude that Boyd is not entitled to the
requested relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be
used only in extraordinary circumstances; it may not be used as
a substitute for appeal. Kerr v. United States 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.
4
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988). Boyd has not met these standards, and therefore, we deny
his petitions for mandamus.
We grant Boyd’s motion to have his “mitigative briefs”
considered as his informal briefs, but deny his remaining
motions, including his motion for waiver of service, his motion
to deconsolidate, and his motion to direct the district court to
provide him with a certified copy of the record. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court.
Nos. 11-1983, 11-1990, 11-1996, 11-1998:
AFFIRMED
Nos. 11-2143, 11-2144:
PETITION DENIED
5