In Re: Corrigan v.

Filing 920060703

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6379

IN RE:

MARK CORRIGAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:05-cv-00347-H)

Submitted: June 22, 2006

Decided: July 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Corrigan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mark Corrigan petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reconsider certain post-trial orders. relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Further, mandamus is a used in extraordinary We conclude that Corrigan is not entitled to mandamus

Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). drastic remedy and should only be

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. Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Corrigan 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 In re United

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 -