Case Name: In re Charles GILLENWATER, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-22
Citations: 567 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 14-1101
Parties: In re Charles GILLENWATER, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 567
Pages: 209–209

Head Matter:
In re Charles GILLENWATER, Petitioner.
No. 14-1101.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2014.
Decided: April 22, 2014.
Charles Gillenwater, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gillenwater petitions for an emergency writ of mandamus seeking an order ensuring, inter alia, a timely trial and counsel of his choice. We conclude that Gillenwater 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). 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 Gillenwater 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
The district court recently dismissed as frivolous the underlying complaint.