Case Name: In re: Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 187 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 06-6302
Parties: In re: Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Petitioner.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
In re: Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Petitioner.
No. 06-6302.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 20, 2006.
Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking a review of the district court's actions in his case. We conclude Kokoski is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. 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. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).
The relief sought by Kokoski 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.