UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1046
In Re: JOHN D. GOELZ,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-99-413-3-MU)
Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Goelz, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John D. Goelz brought this petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to vacate all orders
entered in his breach of contract action and to remand the action
to state court in South Carolina. Goelz filed in the district
court a motion for a remand. Where there is another available
remedy, mandamus relief is not available. See In re Beard, 811
F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus is not a substitute for
appeal. See In re United Steelworkers of America, 595 F.2d 958,
960 (4th Cir. 1979). Goelz has two remedies available other than
mandamus. First, he may wait for the district court’s response to
his recent motion in that court for a remand to state court. Sec-
ond, he may appeal any unfavorable district court decision. See
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (by timely filing
motion for remand, litigant “did all that was required to preserve
his objection to removal”). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2