Case ID: f-appx_69/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Prince S.J. WEBBER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6421.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 1, 2003.
    Decided July 24, 2003.
    Prince S.J. Webber, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Neil Ray White, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Prince S.J. Webber appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ a mandamus, which sought an effective parole date or an order to full term expiration from the United States Parole Commission. Mandamus relief is only available 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 situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).

Because Webber fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Webber v. Dep’t of Justice, No. CA-02-3093-FNS (D.Md. Feb. 20, 2003). We also deny Webber’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED.