IN RE: Dillon MVURI (2019)

Dillon Mvuri petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its orders denying his motions to compel discovery and to amend the complaint in his civil action. We conclude that Mvuri 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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). 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 Mvuri is not available by way of mandamus. Mvuri recently filed an appeal from the final order in the civil action, see Mvuri v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (4th Cir.) (No. 19-1084), and he may, if he chooses, challenge the orders denying his motions to compel and to amend his complaint in that appeal. 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

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.