Case Name: In re Charles PYNE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-15
Citations: 488 F. App'x 723
Docket Number: No. 12-2299
Parties: In re Charles PYNE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
In re Charles PYNE, Petitioner.
No. 12-2299.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 13, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 15, 2012.
Charles Pyne, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Pyne petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to recuse itself from any further participation regarding his October 2012 motions for expedited reconsideration based on fraud and for a transfer of venue and vacating the court's order denying those motions. We conclude that Pyne is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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 Pyne 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.