¶1 Thomas L. Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order “directing the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division, to act accordingly in response to plaintiff full compliance with the District Court Order entered on March 1, 2007.” We conclude that Jackson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
¶2 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). *340 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). In order to obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show “he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.” In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). Jackson does not explain how the district court failed to comply with its own order, nor is any such failure apparent from the materials before the court.
¶3 Moreover, even if it appeared that the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice was erroneous, Jackson has not shown he has a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief. Because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, Jackson should have sought review of the district court’s dismissal order by filing a timely notice of appeal rather than a belated request for mandamus relief. Accordingly, 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.
¶4 PETITION DENIED.