Case Name: In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-25
Citations: 583 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 14-1717
Parties: In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
In re Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
No. 14-1717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 25, 2014.
Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams petitions for writ of mandamus seeking review of the magistrate judge's order denying Williams' motion for recusal. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary cir- eumstances. 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). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.