Case Name: In re Timothy Earl WASHINGTON, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-28
Citations: 521 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 13-1234
Parties: In re Timothy Earl WASHINGTON, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 206–206

Head Matter:
In re Timothy Earl WASHINGTON, Petitioner.
No. 13-1234.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2013.
Decided: May 28, 2013.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Timothy Earl Washington, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and AGEE, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Earl Washington petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the district court to vacate its previous orders denying Washington's Fed. R.Crim.P. 36 motion to correct clerical errors associated with his criminal judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We conclude that Washington 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 Washington is not available by way of mandamus. 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.