eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2015-06

In Re: Thomas Shrader v. , 606 F. App'x 104 ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1428
In re:   THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:09-cr-00270-1)
Submitted:   June 18, 2015                  Decided:   June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Creighton Shrader, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Creighton Shrader petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the recusal of the magistrate and
district   court   judges   and    an       order   directing   his   immediate
release from incarceration.         We conclude that Shrader is not
entitled to mandamus relief on these grounds.
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).      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 Shrader has not alleged any nonspeculative basis to question
the judges’ impartiality.         In re Beard,
    811 F.2d 818
    , 827 (4th
Cir. 1987).    Moreover, Shrader’s motion for bond is pending in
the district court, and mandamus may not be used as a substitute
for appeal.   In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th
Cir. 2007).
Shrader also alleges that the district court has unduly
delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his
motion for bond.     He seeks an order from this court directing
the district court to act.        We find the present record does not
reveal undue delay in the district court.
2
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the mandamus petition.       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