# In Re: Bobby Brown v.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 18, 2015 · 622 F. App'x 247

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3155742

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Bobby James BROWN, Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 18, 2015
- **Citations:** 622 F. App'x 247
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, King, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3155742

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1342

In Re: BOBBY JAMES BROWN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:00-cr-00100-JFM-1)

Submitted: November 13, 2015 Decided: November 18, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby James Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

After the district court denied Bobby James Brown’s motion

challenging his criminal convictions and sentence, Brown filed a

petition for mandamus in this court, asking that we address the

merits of the motion. We conclude that Brown is not entitled to

the relief sought. Mandamus 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), and may not be used as a substitute for

appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 502 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.

2007). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3155742. Public record. Not legal advice.