Court Opinion

ID: 8440793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 18:13:17.715432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:48.869549
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Restoney Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus challenging the magistrate judge’s deficiency order in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action Robinson filed in 2003. 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 Robinson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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