Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In Re: Jonathan T. HOUGH, Petitioner.
    No. 03-6021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 5, 2003.
    Jonathan T. Hough, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Jonathan T. Hough petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that we vacate a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, which remains pending in the district court.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See 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. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

With these standards in mind, we conclude Hough fails to establish he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his 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.