Case Name: In re David WATTLETON, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-31
Citations: 536 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 13-1326
Parties: In re David WATTLETON, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
In re David WATTLETON, Petitioner.
No. 13-1326.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2013.
Decided: July 31, 2013.
David Wattleton, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Earl Wattleton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the'district court to "return any monies taken from petitioner's institutional inmate trust fund account and cease taking money via the consent form." We conclude that Wattleton 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). Moreover, 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 Wattleton is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.