In re Barnes

326 F. App'x 174
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 5, 2009·No. No. 09-1089·Published

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Louis Barnes petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order addressing perceived injustices in the district court. We conclude that Barnes 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

The relief sought by Barnes is not available by way of mandamus. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Barnes, 326 F. App'x 174 (4th Cir. 2009).

326 F. App'x 174 (In re Barnes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases)
811 F.2d 818 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Baker
860 F.2d 135 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)