UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1517

In re: FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, a/k/a Jason Robert Goldader,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cv-01305-JCC-IDD; 1:14-cv-00507-JCC-MSN)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Jae LordMaster, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Frankie Jae LordMaster petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to file certain

documents and to grant him the relief he requested in a

(2012) petition and a

(2012)

complaint. We conclude that LordMaster is not entitled to

mandamus relief on these grounds.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

(1976); United States v. Moussaoui,

(4th Cir. 2003). It is available only when the

petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, In re First

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,

(4th Cir. 1988), and

may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed

Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007).

LordMaster also alleges that the district court has unduly

delayed in ruling on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his

habeas action and in progressing on his § 1983 complaint. He

seeks an order from this court directing the district court to

act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in

the district court in LordMaster’s habeas action. Further, our

review of the district court’s docket reveals that the court

dismissed LordMaster’s § 1983 with prejudice in May 2015,

2 rendering moot the portion of the mandamus petition seeking

timely review of this complaint.

Accordingly, we deny LordMaster’s motions to stay judgment

and for class action status and deny his mandamus petition. 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

3