Case Name: In re Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-04
Citations: 414 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 10-2173
Parties: In re Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 566–566

Head Matter:
In re Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Petitioner.
No. 10-2173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 4, 2011.
Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Bernard Truesdale petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order the district court to file and liberally construe his pleadings and to schedule a hearing. We conclude that Truesdale is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary Kerr v. United States 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007), and 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).
The relief sought by Truesdale is not available by way of mandamus. Accord-ingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argu-ment because the facts and legal conten-tions are adequately presented in the ma-terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.