In re Jones , 258 F. App'x 545 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  • PER CURIAM:

    Christopher Bernard Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking review of several district court decisions in a pending civil action. We conclude that Jones 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). *546Further, 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). 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 Jones 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.

Document Info

Docket Number: No. 07-1930

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 545

Judges: Motz, Niemeyer, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/18/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024