Case Name: In Re: Isaac Lee WOODS; Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 382 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 10-1359
Parties: In Re: Isaac Lee WOODS; Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
In Re: Isaac Lee WOODS; Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners.
No. 10-1359.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2010.
Decided: June 10, 2010.
Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that Chief Judge Flanagan recuse herself. We conclude the Woods are 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).
We note this is the third time the Woods have raised this issue in this court. See United States v. Woods, 295 Fed.Appx. 570 (4th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (recusal issue raised in their pro se supplemental brief); United States v. Woods, 331 Fed.Appx. 219 (4th Cir.2009) (unpublished) (an appeal from the district court order denying their motion for recusal). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007). Nor have the Woods shown they are entitled to the relief sought 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.