In Re: Robinson v. , 114 F. App'x 590 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7072
In Re: RESTONEY ROBINSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-1109-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2004 Decided: December 13, 2004
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Restoney Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Restoney Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus,
evidently challenging the enforcement of a prefiling injunction.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear
right to the relief sought and there are no other means by which
the relief sought could be granted. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy
and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Beard,
811 F.2d at 826. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). The relief sought by Robinson 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 -