Case Name: Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee; Derek N. Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-20
Citations: 408 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: Nos. 10-1425, 10-1573
Parties: Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee. Derek N. Jarvis, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee. Derek N. Jarvis, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant—Appellee.
Nos. 10-1425, 10-1573.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Michelle Bodley Radcliffe, Isler, Dare, Ray, Radcliffe & Connolly, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action and ruling on related matters, and the later order denying his motions to reconsider, for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and for transcripts at government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services & Leasing Co., No. 8:07-cv-03385-DKC, 2010 WL 1068146 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2010) & 2010 WL 1929845 (May 11, 2010).
We also deny Jarvis' petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to recuse the magistrate judge and district judge who ruled on his claims below. 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). Jarvis has failed to establish the grounds needed for relief. See Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1984) (providing grounds needed for recusal). 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.
AFFIRMED.