Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01223/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred T. Thomas
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1223

In Re: ALFRED T. THOMAS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:08-cv-00502-FDW)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred T. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1223 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfred T. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking reconsideration of a district court order and our 

opinion affirming the order. We conclude that Thomas 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 and should only be used in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). Mandamus 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 Thomas 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-1223 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2