Opinion
Nos. 10-1451, 10-1550.
Submitted: August 26, 2010.
Decided: August 31, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-O0280-PJM).
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:09-cv-O0280-PJM).
Derek N. Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants/Petitioners Pro Se. Charles Lo-well Frederick, County Attorney's Office, Rockville, Maryland; Edward P. Henne-berry, Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC; John Benjamin Raftery, Offit Kurman, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. 10-1550 petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Derek N. Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman appeal from the district court's order, in their civil action, directing them to file a supplement to their amended complaint that contains a short, plain statement of facts, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Appellants seek to appeal this order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellants have also filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court judge to recuse himself from their proceeding below. 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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Appellants have not made such a showing. Accordingly, 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.
No. 10-1451 DISMISSED.
No. 10-1550 PETITION DENIES.