Case Name: In re: Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 103 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 04-6499
Parties: In re: Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
In re: Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Petitioner.
No. 04-6499.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 22, 2004.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner pro se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee hairston, Sr., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this court order the recusal of the Assistant United States Attorney, the magistrate judge, and the district court judge involved in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See 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 United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Further, mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Hairston has not shown that the relief sought is not available by other means. Accordingly, although we grant Hairston's motion to proceed in for-ma 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