Court Opinion

ID: 8677345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 02:55:27.942738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:26.157746
License: Public Domain

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order reversing the dismissals of his civil actions filed between 1997 and 2015. We conclude that Wilder is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary cir*294cumstances. 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 Wilder is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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.