UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8054
In Re: LACY DAVIS, III,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-633-2)
Submitted: April 15, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002
Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lacy Davis, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lacy Davis filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this
court to overturn the district court’s dismissal of his civil tort
complaint, and remand for further consideration.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976 ). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no
other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133,
1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking prohibition or mandamus
relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his
entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Lacy has not made such a showing. He had an ample opportunity
to pursue a direct appeal from the district court’s dismissal
order, but declined to do so. He may not now employ a mandamus
petition to avoid the consequences of his failure to appeal.
Accordingly, we deny Lacy’s petition for mandamus relief. 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