UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-639

In Re: RICHARD LYNN STEARNS MILLER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-138-3-11-BC)

No. 98-7452

RICHARD LYNN STEARNS MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State

of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-138-3-11-BC)
2

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

No. 98-639 petition denied and No. 98-7452 dismissed by unpublished

per curiam opinion.

Richard Lynn Stearns Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Donald John

Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In case no. 98-639, Richard Lynn Stearns Miller seeks a writ

of mandamus directing the Clerk of Court to complete service and to

waive proof of service because he is unable to make copies;

ordering the prisons’ wardens and correctional officers to turn

over to the Clerk of Court the legal materials, writing supplies,

and other implements of access to the courts that were confiscated

from Miller; and ordering the district court to fashion a remedy to

provide him adequate access to the courts, legal materials, supplies, and mail.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th

Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394

(1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of

showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that

his right to the relief sought is “clear and indisputable.”

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989)

(quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384

(1953)); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. We find that Miller has not met

his burden of proving that mandamus is the proper remedy in this

situation. Miller’s allegations of denial of access to courts may

be addressed in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 1998). To the extent Miller seeks mandamus relief to alter

the disposition of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)
* Miller alleges that he prepared and delivered to prison

authorities his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and that the objections were confiscated by prison

officials or the district court never received them. This court is

not the appropriate forum in which to raise this claim. Under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may move the district court for relief

from a final judgment or order based upon any reason justifying

relief.

4

petition, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers of Am., 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

Accordingly, although we grant Miller’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of

mandamus.

In appeal no. 98-7452, Miller seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under § 2254.

Miller’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Miller that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Miller failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.*

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally
5

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Miller has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motion to transfer this action, deny

his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss appeal

no. 98-7452.

We have granted Miller’s motions to file exhibits in this

court, but deny the motions to the extent that Miller wishes them

also filed in an action pending in district court. We further deny

Miller’s motions for a stay to enforce a judgment, for seizure of

property and persons, for emergency relief in a writ of prohibition, for a writ of mandate, for summary reversal of the state

court conviction, for summary judgment in his pending § 1983

action, for an emergency writ of assistance to expedite the appeals, for relief from judgment in banc, for court-ordered legal

supplies, and for a contempt order.

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.

No. 98-639 - PETITION DENIED

No. 98-7452 - DISMISSED