UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6195
In Re: CURTIS L. WARD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-109)
Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis L. Ward, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. Ward petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to
compel the district court for the Eastern District of Virginia to
hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to his pending 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. 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.
In the event he does not receive an evidentiary hearing, Ward
may attack the district court’s refusal to hold a hearing by ap-
pealing the court’s final order in his case. Therefore, because
there are other adequate means to attain relief, Ward’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). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the 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