UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -