Court Opinion

ID: 4346616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-03 20:00:25.653441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:31.198160
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-1929

In re: LATHRONEA P. GRESHAM,

                    Petitioner.

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: November 29, 2018                                 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lathronea P. Gresham, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Lathronea Gresham petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the district court to reopen her employment discrimination action. We conclude that

Gresham 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 (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 Gresham 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                    PETITION DENIED

                                              2