Case Name: IN RE: Edward EAVES, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 16-2094
Parties: IN RE: Edward EAVES, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
IN RE: Edward EAVES, Petitioner.
No. 16-2094
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 15, 2016
Decided: December 19, 2016
Edward Eaves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Eaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to issue an order denying a motion to dismiss. We conclude that Eaves 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). Here, the district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss Eaves' employment discrimination case. The appropriate way to challenge that ruling is by appealing it. 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 Eaves is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED