Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to schedule a trial date in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We conclude that Robinson is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief *732 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 circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus and, to the extent Robinson alleges undue delay by the district court, we find there has been no undue delay in the handling of Robinson’s case on remand. Accordingly, although we grant Robinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a 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.

PETITION DENIED.