Case Name: In re: Rodney H. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Simon Andrew Conrad, a/k/a Siothan Andrew Connor, a/k/a Rod Williams, a/k/a Kenneth Gary Williams, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-04
Citations: 144 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 05-7070
Parties: In re: Rodney H. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Simon Andrew Conrad, a/k/a Siothan Andrew Connor, a/k/a Rod Williams, a/k/a Kenneth Gary Williams, Petitioner.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 343–344

Head Matter:
In re: Rodney H. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Simon Andrew Conrad, a/k/a Siothan Andrew Connor, a/k/a Rod Williams, a/k/a Kenneth Gary Williams, Petitioner.
No. 05-7070.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2005.
Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order requiring the district court judge presiding over his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding to be recused.
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 only be used 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).
Williams has failed to allege the extrajudicial bias necessary to warrant recusal of the district judge. In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 827. Thus, his claim fails. Id. Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his 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