Case Name: In re: Randy Lee HAMMITT, Beau Horner, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-13
Citations: 108 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 04-1513
Parties: In re: Randy Lee HAMMITT, Beau Horner, Petitioners.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
In re: Randy Lee HAMMITT, Beau Horner, Petitioners.
No. 04-1513.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2004.
Decided Sept. 13, 2004.
Randy Lee Hammitt, Beau Horner, Petitioners pro se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randy Lee Hammitt and Beau Horner petition for a writ of mandamus. They seek an order compelling the district court and the bankruptcy court to stop the proceedings against them.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States 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).
The relief sought by Hammitt and Horner 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