UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2472
In Re: ARTHUR RODGERS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:12-cv-03778-CCB)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Rodgers, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In this petition for a writ of mandamus, Arthur
Rodgers asks that we order the district court to take
appropriate action to ensure that prison officials properly mail
Rodgers’ legal correspondence. Rodgers also seeks our review of
the district court’s October 16, 2013 order, which denied
Rodgers’ motions for a preliminary injunction, for immediate
relief, to appoint counsel, to compel discovery, and for a
default judgment, and to allow an appeal from that order. We
conclude that Rodgers is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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).
Rodgers has not demonstrated his clear right to the
relief sought, as the district court’s docket reveals that many
of his filings have been received and properly docketed.
Further, we decline to review the district court’s October 16,
2013 order by way of mandamus because mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3