Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0234-01.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

In Re: Daniel WATLINGTON, Petitioner.
    No. 09-1227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 15, 2009.
    Decided: April 28, 2009.
    Daniel Watlington, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Watlington petitions for a writ of mandamus in which he seeks an order remanding the assets in the Pallie Trust to the stated trust beneficiary. We conclude that Watlington 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 reserved for 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). “[Mjandamus 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 Watlington is not available by way of mandamus. The proper avenue for Watlington to contest the district court’s decision allowing the government to use the trust funds for restitution is a direct appeal, a route Watlington has already pursued without success. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.