In re: Sherrod V. Bright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1022
In Re: SHERROD V. BRIGHT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:08-cv-00029-TLW-TER)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherrod V. Bright, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sherrod V. Bright petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his
forfeiture action. We conclude that Bright 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 only be used 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). The relief sought by Bright 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 of 2 --