UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6313
In Re: JOHN FRANK BOWEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-178-5)
Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Frank Bowen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Frank Bowen petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus
to compel the district court to permit him to amend his habeas
corpus petition. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary
circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing
that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right
to the relief sought is “clear and indisputable.” Mallard v.
United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). Mandamus is
not a substitute for appeal. Id. Bowen may attack the district
court’s order denying his motion to amend by appealing the court’s
final order in his case. Therefore, because there are other ade-
quate means to attain relief, Bowen’s right to mandamus relief is
not “clear and indisputable.” See United States ex rel. Rahman v.
Oncology Assoc. P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 511 (4th Cir. 1999). Accord-
ingly, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument be-
cause 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