Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01199/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mitchell Gatewood
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1199

In Re: MITCHELL GATEWOOD,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:08-cv-00182-RJC)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Gatewood, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1199 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mitchell Gatewood petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to hold an 

evidentiary hearing. We conclude that Gatewood 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 Gatewood 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: 10-1199 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 2