UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1066
In Re: PATRICK R. MCINTOSH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:10-cv-01730-RMG-BM)
Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick R. McIntosh, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick R. McIntosh petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to enter a
protective order to relieve McIntosh’s discovery obligations in
a civil case in which he is the Plaintiff. We conclude that
McIntosh is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
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). Moreover, mandamus
may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed
Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by McIntosh 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