UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1043
In Re: THOMAS L. JACKSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: April 23, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas L. Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order “directing the Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia Norfolk Division, to act accordingly in response to
plaintiff full compliance with the District Court Order entered on
March 1, 2007.” We conclude that Jackson 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 be used only 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). In
order to obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show “he has a
clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.” In re Braxton,
258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). Jackson
does not explain how the district court failed to comply with its
own order, nor is any such failure apparent from the materials
before the court.
Moreover, even if it appeared that the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint without prejudice was erroneous,
Jackson has not shown he has a clear and indisputable right to
mandamus relief. Because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal,
Jackson should have sought review of the district court’s dismissal
- 2 -
order by filing a timely notice of appeal rather than a belated
request for mandamus relief. Accordingly, 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
- 3 -