Case Name: In re: Charles BROWN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-05
Citations: 179 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 05-7950
Parties: In re: Charles BROWN, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
In re: Charles BROWN, Petitioner.
No. 05-7950.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2006.
Decided May 5, 2006.
Charles Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Brown petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He seeks review of the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and review of his conviction and sentence reflected in the amended judgment entered in January 2001.
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).
The relief sought by Brown 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.