Case Name: IN RE: Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 683 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 16-2313
Parties: IN RE: Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
IN RE: Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner.
No. 16-2313
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Bernard McFadden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on documents he filed subsequent to the denial of relief on his underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We conclude that McFadden 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 McFadden 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED