Case Name: In re Norris G. DILLAHUNT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-01
Citations: 60 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 03-1153
Parties: In re Norris G. DILLAHUNT, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 481–481

Head Matter:
In re Norris G. DILLAHUNT, Petitioner.
No. 03-1153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2003.
Decided April 1, 2003.
Norris G. Dillahunt, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Norris G. Dillahunt petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order compelling the City of New Bern to comply with federal policies. Dillahunt also seeks an injunction under Fed. R.App. P. 8.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See 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. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).
With these standards in mind, we conclude mandamus is not appropriate for the relief Dillahunt seeks. Accordingly, we deny Dillahunt's motion for an injunction and his 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.