Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02094/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Eaves
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2094

In re: EDWARD EAVES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:16-cv-00129-GCM)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Eaves, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2094 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Eaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order 

directing the district court to issue an order denying a motion to 

dismiss. We conclude that Eaves is not entitled to mandamus 

relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (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). Here, the district court granted defendant’s motion to 

dismiss Eaves’ employment discrimination case. The appropriate 

way to challenge that ruling is by appealing it. Mandamus may not 

be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Eaves 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

Appeal: 16-2094 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 2