UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1841
In Re: EDGAR SEARCY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02126-BO)
Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 1, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edgar Searcy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Searcy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to
challenge civil commitments under the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 1976 (“the Adam Walsh Act”), 18
U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248 (2012). We conclude that Searcy is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
“Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy, to be invoked only in
extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Moussaoui, 333
F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the
petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re
Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 Searcy 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2