Case Name: In re: Mark CORRIGAN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 188 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 06-6379
Parties: In re: Mark CORRIGAN, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 162–162

Head Matter:
In re: Mark CORRIGAN, Petitioner.
No. 06-6379.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: July 3, 2006.
Mark Corrigan, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark Corrigan petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reconsider certain post-trial orders. We conclude that Corrigan 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 Corrigan 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.