
    In re Robert E. GREEN, Sr., Petitioner.
    No. 15-2154,
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.
    Decided: Jan. 21, 2016.
    Robert E. Green, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Green, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order allowing him to enter a -federal courthouse from which he has been barred by court orders in order to receive a sum of money he believes is on deposit there. We conclude that Green is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).

The relief sought by Green is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Green’s motions to seal and 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. 
      
       Green previously filed an unsuccessful appeal of these orders and an order denying a related motion. See Green v. Mayor and City Council, 532 Fed.Appx. 413 (4th Cir.2013).
     