M. Eugene Gibbs appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ a mandamus (No. 02-1301), which sought reinstatement of his federal workers’ com *282 pensation benefits, and the district court’s denial of his motion for injunctive relief (No. 02-1045). Mandamus relief is only available 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 situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Injunctive relief is only warranted when a movant can show a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying dispute. North Carolina State Ports Auth. v. Dart Containerline Co., 592 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir. 1979).

Because the Federal Workers’ Compensation Act (“FECA”) likely bars Gibbs’ underlying claim for disability benefits, see 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) (2000), and because Gibbs fails to show that he satisfies any exception to the FECA bar, he is not entitled to either injunctive or mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court’s orders. In addition, we deny Gibbs’ petition for a writ of mandamus filed in this court. 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.

AFFIRMED.