Case Name: In Re: Christopher Leonard OLSZOWY; Anna Olszowy, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-03
Citations: 406 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 10-2303
Parties: In Re: Christopher Leonard OLSZOWY; Anna Olszowy, Petitioners.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
In Re: Christopher Leonard OLSZOWY; Anna Olszowy, Petitioners.
No. 10-2303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 3, 2011.
Christopher Leonard Olszowy; Anna Olszowy, Petitioners Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher and Anna Olszowy petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order invalidating the district court's order denying their motion for a stay. We conclude that the Olszowys are 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 the Olszowys is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.