Court Opinion

ID: 1014253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:13:38.604499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:39.984097
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 04-7087

In Re:   ARTHUR DOUGLAS, III,

                                                             Petitioner.

             On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-84)

Submitted:    August 11, 2004                 Decided:   August 30, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Douglas, III, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (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

                              - 2 -