Case Name: In re Travis Denorris ARNOLD, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 12-1550
Parties: In re Travis Denorris ARNOLD, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
In re Travis Denorris ARNOLD, Petitioner.
No. 12-1550.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2012.
Decided: June 19, 2012.
Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to 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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, and should not be used as a substitute for appeal. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief sought and that his entitlement to relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).
Our review of the district court's docket reveals that, on March 19, 2012, the magistrate judge granted Arnold permission to file his objections to the report and recommendation. Because we do not deem mandamus relief warranted in these circumstances, we deny Arnold's petition, although we grant his pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.