UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7276
In Re: TIMOTHY ADAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamu. (CA-97-1225)
Submitted: December 29, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Adams, Petitioner pro se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Adams has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court direct the district court to rule upon
a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in the district court on
November 2, 1999. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). 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), and may
not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian
Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135-36 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking
mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no
other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his
entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
The district court ruled upon Adams’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion on December 19, 2000. Therefore, the petition for a writ of
mandamus is moot because Adams received the relief he sought.
Accordingly, we deny Adams’ petition for mandamus relief. We dis-
pense 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