UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2094
In re: EDWARD EAVES,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:16-cv-00129-GCM)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Eaves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Eaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the district court to issue an order denying a motion to
dismiss. We conclude that Eaves 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). Here, the district court granted defendant’s motion to
dismiss Eaves’ employment discrimination case. The appropriate
way to challenge that ruling is by appealing it. 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 Eaves 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