Case Name: In re James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-21
Citations: 603 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 15-1306
Parties: In re James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS,' Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
In re James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 15-1306.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2015.
Decided: May 21, 2015.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS,' 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing federal officials to return to him legal paperwork relative to several ongoing civil actions and to refrain from interfering in those actions or any other actions he might file in the future. We conclude that Roudabush 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 Roudabush 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.