
    In re: Thurston Paul BELL, Petitioner.
    No. 07-1294.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 21, 2007.
    Decided: June 27, 2007.
    Thurston Paul Bell, Petitioner pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Thurston Paul Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court order the district court to send him materials so that he can complete service of his petition to quash a summons and to strike the Justice Department’s motion for summary denial. We conclude that Bell is not entitled to mandamus relief.

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 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

The relief sought by Bell is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceéd in forma pauperis, 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.

PETITION DENIED.  