Chase Hunter v. Gerard Roventini, 4th Cir. (2015)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2259
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
GERARD M. ROVENTINI, a/k/a Jerry M. Roventini; JOHN DOE;
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS; THE
NATIONAL INSURANCE PRODUCER REGISTRY; ELEANOR KITZMAN,
Individually
and
in
her
Official
Capacity
as
the
Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance; JULIA
RATHGEBER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the
Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance; THE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; DAVE JONES, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as The Commissioner of Insurance
of the California Department of Insurance; THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; RAYMOND O. ANDERSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00733-FL)
No. 15-1019
In Re:
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:14-cv-00733-FL)
Submitted:
March 27, 2015
Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.
and
DIAZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
June 3, 2015
DAVIS,
Senior
No. 14-2259 dismissed in part, vacated in part, remanded, and

petition denied; No. 15-1019 petition denied by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated proceedings, Chase Hunter seeks to
appeal the magistrate judges order denying her leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (2012).
Hunter
also
appeals
the
district
courts
order
denying
motion to vacate the magistrate judges IFP order.
her
Finally,
Hunter petitions this Court for writs of mandamus ordering the

district court to edit the electronic docket designations of her
submissions
system.
and
to
permit
her
to
use
its
electronic
filing
After careful consideration, we dismiss Hunters appeal
of the magistrate judges order, vacate the district courts

order and remand for its determination of Hunters IFP status,
and deny Hunters mandamus petitions.
First,
we
judges order.
lack
jurisdiction
to
review
the
magistrate
See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (2012); Colorado Bldg.
& Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., Inc., 879
F.2d 809, 811 (4th Cir. 1989).
appeal
from
the
order
of
We therefore dismiss Hunters
the
magistrate
judge
for
want
of
jurisdiction.
We
do
have
jurisdiction
to
review
the
district
courts
order denying Hunters motion to vacate the magistrate judges

IFP order.
of
motion
We construe the district courts order as a denial

for
leave
to
proceed
IFP,
which
is
appealable and reviewed for abuse of discretion.

3
immediately
Roberts v.
United
States
District
Court,
339
U.S.
844,
845
(1950)
(appealability); OLoughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.

1990) (standard of review).
The magistrate judge, proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)
(2012), lacked the authority to issue an order denying Hunter
leave to proceed IFP.
See Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 187
(6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ([A] denial of such a motion is

the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal and is
outside the scope of a magistrates authority.).
While the
district court did have such authority, it abused its discretion

by
applying
clearly
erroneous
standard
of
review
to
the
magistrate judges order rather than reviewing it de novo.
The
magistrate judge could do no more than issue a recommendation;

as a result, the district court was required to make a de novo
determination
of
recommendation
to
those
portions
of
the
which
objection
[was]
magistrate
made.
judges
Diamond
v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2005)
(internal alterations omitted)).
properly
that
considered
Hunter
order.
had
its
noted
Moreover, the district court
jurisdiction
an
appeal
constrained
from
the
by
the
magistrate
fact
judges
See Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir.
2014) (Generally, a timely filed notice of appeal transfers

jurisdiction of a case to the court of appeals and strips a
4
district court of jurisdiction to rule on any matters involved

in the appeal.).
Thus, in Appeal No. 14-2259, we grant leave
to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal of

the magistrate judges order, vacate the district courts order
denying
Hunters
motion
to
vacate,
and
remand
to
allow
the
district court to rule on Hunters IFP status.

As for Hunters mandamus petitions, we note that mandamus
is
drastic
circumstances.
remedy
to
be
used
only
in
extraordinary
United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17
(4th Cir. 2003).
Mandamus relief is available only when there
are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted.

Id. at 517.
The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy
burden of showing that she has no other adequate means to obtain

the relief sought and that her entitlement to relief is clear
and indisputable.
33, 35 (1980).
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S.
We deny Hunters mandamus petitions, as she has
shown no indisputable right to relief in either instance.

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.
No. 14-2259 DISMISSED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, REMANDED,
AND PETITION DENIED
No. 15-1019 PETITION DENIED

Chase Hunter v. Gerard Roventini, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chase Hunter v. Gerard Roventini, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chase Hunter v. Gerard Roventini, 4th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

March 27, 2015

No. 14-2259 dismissed in part, vacated in part, remanded, and

Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

motion to vacate the magistrate judges IFP order.

Hunter petitions this Court for writs of mandamus ordering the

After careful consideration, we dismiss Hunters appeal

of the magistrate judges order, vacate the district courts

See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (2012); Colorado Bldg.

We therefore dismiss Hunters

order denying Hunters motion to vacate the magistrate judges

We construe the district courts order as a denial

appealable and reviewed for abuse of discretion.

(appealability); OLoughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.

See Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 187

(6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ([A] denial of such a motion is

district court did have such authority, it abused its discretion

magistrate judges order rather than reviewing it de novo.

magistrate judge could do no more than issue a recommendation;

Moreover, the district court

2014) (Generally, a timely filed notice of appeal transfers

district court of jurisdiction to rule on any matters involved

Thus, in Appeal No. 14-2259, we grant leave

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal of

district court to rule on Hunters IFP status.

United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17

(4th Cir. 2003).

Mandamus relief is available only when there

are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted.

The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy

burden of showing that she has no other adequate means to obtain

Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S.

We deny Hunters mandamus petitions, as she has

shown no indisputable right to relief in either instance.

No. 14-2259 DISMISSED IN PART,

You might also like