Case ID: f-appx_123/html/0143-01.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: James BEASLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 04-1847.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.
    Decided March 18, 2005.
    James Beasley, Petitioner pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

James Beasley has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court that would effectively reinstate the payment of supplemental security income to Beasley — a matter that has been fully litigated. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to 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). “[CJourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Ford Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir.1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Beasley carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We find that Beasley has failed to meet this burden and thus we dismiss the petition. We deny Beasley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 DISMISSED