Case Name: In re Albert Charles BURGESS, JR., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 598 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 15-1087
Parties: In re Albert Charles BURGESS, JR., Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
In re Albert Charles BURGESS, JR., Petitioner.
No. 15-1087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 20, 2015.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court compelling the district court to order PayPal to answer a subpoena. We conclude that Burgess 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, 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., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).
The relief sought by Burgess is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a 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.