Case Name: In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-24
Citations: 544 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 13-2038
Parties: In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 184–184

Head Matter:
In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
No. 13-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2013.
Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams petitions- for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to grant his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We conclude that Williams 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). The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of mandamus. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.