
    In re: Bertram Norman MCELHINEY, Petitioner.
    No. 05-6338.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2005.
    Decided: July 7, 2005.
    Bertram Norman McElhiney, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Bertram Norman McElhiney seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to provide him with a free transcript of his plea hearing in North Carolina state court. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition.

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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should 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); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

The relief McElhiney seeks is not available by way of mandamus. In particular, there are other adequate means to attain the relief McElhiney desires, and McElhiney is unable to meet all the criteria set forth in In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.2001), for obtaining mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant McElhiney’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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  