UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6137
In Re: KITTRELL BERNARD DECATOR; In Re: CRAIG
LAMONT SCOTT,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-01-2289-S)
Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kittrell Bernard Decator, Craig Lamont Scott, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kittrell Decator and Craig Scott have filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus asking this court to overturn the district court’s
dismissal of their civil tort complaint.
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).
Decator and Scott have not made such a showing. Appellate
review of the district court’s dismissal of their civil tort
complaint could have been obtained by direct appeal. Accordingly,
we deny their 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