Case Name: In re Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-25
Citations: 385 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 10-1535
Parties: In re Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 385
Pages: 316–316

Head Matter:
In re Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Petitioner.
No. 10-1535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 17, 2010.
Decided: June 25, 2010.
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to correct an alleged clerical error in an order. We conclude Abdullah is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 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). 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 Abdullah 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.