Case Name: In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-25
Citations: 71 F. App'x 1000
Docket Number: No. 03-6973
Parties: In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 1000–1001

Head Matter:
In re: Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 03-6973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided Aug. 25, 2003.
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cornelius Tucker petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order disqualifying the magistrate judge and district judge.
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). We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Tucker does not meet the standard for mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant Tucker's motion 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.