Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0170-01.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: William C. BOND, Petitioner.
    No. 14-1564.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 5, 2014.
    Decided: Sept. 10, 2014.
    William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William C. Bond petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order for the district court judge to recuse himself from any further involvement in Bond’s civil case, and an order vacating all orders entered in this case as a violation of the recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2012). We conclude that Bond is not entitled to mandamus relief. ■

Mandamus relief 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); 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).

We hold that the relief sought by Bond is not available by way of mandamus. Moreover, even considering the merits of the mandamus petition, we hold that Bond has failed to establish any basis for mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.