Case Name: In re James M. MILLEAGE; Bonnie I. Milleage, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-05
Citations: 13 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 01-1367
Parties: In re James M. MILLEAGE; Bonnie I. Milleage, Petitioners.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
In re James M. MILLEAGE; Bonnie I. Milleage, Petitioners.
No. 01-1367.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2001.
Decided July 5, 2001.
Stephen David Schusterman, Rock Hill, SC, for petitioners.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James M. Milleage and Bonnie I. Milleage have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to vacate its June 1, 2000, order granting relief to Branch Banking and Trust, Inc. (BB&T). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). The Milleages have not made such a showing.
Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. 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.