Case Name: In re: Arthur DOUGLAS, III, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-30
Citations: 107 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 04-7087
Parties: In re: Arthur DOUGLAS, III, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
In re: Arthur DOUGLAS, III, Petitioner.
No. 04-7087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2004.
Decided Aug. 30, 2004.
Arthur Douglas, III, Petitioner pro se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Arthur Douglas, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling discovery.
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 be used only 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 Douglas 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