Case Name: M. Eugene GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees; M. Eugene Gibbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-09
Citations: 45 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: Nos. 02-1045, 02-1301
Parties: M. Eugene GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees. M. Eugene Gibbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
M. Eugene GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees. M. Eugene Gibbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America; Department of Defense (DCMAO); Department of Labor; George Moore, Dr.; Does 1-5, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-1045, 02-1301.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 9, 2002.
M. Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
M. Eugene Gibbs appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ a mandamus (No. 02-1301), which sought reinstatement of his federal workers' com pensation benefits, and the district court's denial of his motion for injunctive relief (No. 02-1045). Mandamus relief is only available 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 situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Injunctive relief is only warranted when a movant can show a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying dispute. North Carolina State Ports Auth. v. Dart Containerline Co., 592 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir.1979).
Because the Federal Workers' Compensation Act ("FECA") likely bars Gibbs' underlying claim for disability benefits, see 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) (2000), and because Gibbs fails to show that he satisfies any exception to the FECA bar, he is not entitled to either injunctive or mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court's orders. In addition, we deny Gibbs' petition for a writ of mandamus filed in this court. 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.
AFFIRMED.