In Re: Corrigan v.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6379

IN RE: MARK CORRIGAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:05-cv-00347-H)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Corrigan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mark Corrigan petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an

order directing the district court to reconsider certain post-trial

orders. We conclude that Corrigan is not entitled to mandamus

relief.

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). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. 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. In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Corrigan 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 -