Case Name: IN RE: Matthew DAVIS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-12
Citations: 669 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 16-1831
Parties: IN RE: Matthew DAVIS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
IN RE: Matthew DAVIS, Petitioner.
No. 16-1831
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 12, 2016
Matthew Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reinstate his direct appeal. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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).
Davis has not shown the existence of an extraordinary circumstance, nor has he shown that he has a clear right to the relief he seeks. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED