Case Name: In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-30
Citations: 114 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 04-7235
Parties: In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 04-7235.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided Nov. 30, 2004.
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Petitioner pro se.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., faces pending charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court ordered that Tucker be examined to determine his competence to stand trial. Tucker petitions this court for writ of mandamus directing the district court to expedite the examination and order a magnetic resonance imag ing scan. Tucker also wants the examination conducted at a federal prison facility rather than a jail. Tucker requests that counsel, his seventh so far in this proceeding, be dismissed and the judge be recused.
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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). In light of these principles, the relief sought by Tucker is not available through mandamus. To the extent Tucker asserts bias by the district judge, he has not demonstrated extrajudicial bias warranting recusal. Beard, 811 F.2d at 827.
Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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