In these consolidated cases, Gary L. Wise appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wise’s motions for injunctive relief, change of venue, discovery, and motion to place his case in abeyance, as well as his objection to Appellees’ informal brief, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wise v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrs., No. 6:06-cv-00802-HFF, 2007 WL 700833 (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2007).

Wise also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order for more access to the prison law library, alleging he lost several court cases as a result of denied access. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In Re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought and there are no other adequate means for obtaining the requested relief. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. We find Wise fails to meet this demanding standard.

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.

No. 07-6487 AFFIRMED.

No. 07-6711 PETITION DENIED.