In Re: Rice v. ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2063
In Re: GREGORY RICE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:09-cv-01322-PJM)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Rice, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Rice petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order to enforce a security agreement in a civil action
dismissed by the district court. We conclude that Rice is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
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 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979).
The relief sought by Rice is not available by way of
mandamus. 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.
PETITION DENIED
2