In Re: Robinson v.

114 F. App'x 590

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Restoney Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus, evidently challenging the enforcement of a prefiling injunction. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. In re First Fed. Saw. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The relief sought by Robinson 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