Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0134-02.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 Terrance SYKES, Petitioner.
    No. 13-1835.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
    Decided: Sept. 3, 2013.
    Terrance Sykes, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Sykes petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to consider his various filings as he captioned them, grant the relief they request, and enter an appealable final order. We conclude that Sykes is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 508 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).

The district court has already entered a final order from which Sykes may attempt to appeal and the remainder of the relief sought by Sykes is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.