In re: Edward Eave

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999934520-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999939087-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00129-GCM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999989414]. Mailed to: Edward Eaves. [16-2094]

Appeal: 16-2094

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2094

In re:

EDWARD EAVES,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

(3:16-cv-00129-GCM)

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2094

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

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