Court Opinion

ID: 1009690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:00:04.432549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:34.779789
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6021

In Re: JONATHAN T. HOUGH

                                                          Petitioner.

         On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.     (CA-02-990)

Submitted:   January 30, 2003             Decided:   February 5, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan T. Hough, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Jonathan T. Hough petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting

that we vacate a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to

amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, which remains pending in

the district court.

     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 (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).

     With these standards in mind, we conclude Hough fails to

establish he is entitled to mandamus relief.       Accordingly, we deny

his petition. 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

                                    2