UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6061
In Re: GARY L. DETEMPLE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CV-99-145, CV-00-84, CV-00-63, CV-00-64, CV-00-149, CV-00-116)
Submitted: May 18, 2001 Decided: June 1, 2001
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. DeTemple, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary DeTemple has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
requesting that this court recuse the district court judge acting
in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and several
bankruptcy actions, grant him release pending resolution of his
§ 2255 motion, and reverse the district court’s orders dismissing
specified civil actions. He also moves for stay and to compel the
Bureau of Prisons to comply with the law.
The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976)). It is available only when there are no other means by
which the relief sought could be granted. Id. The party seeking
mandamus relief thus 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).
Addressing DeTemple’s requests for recusal, while mandamus is
a proper avenue to seek judicial recusal, Beard, 811 F.2d at 826-
27, we find no facts warranting recusal. As to DeTemple’s request
that this court reverse several of the district court’s orders man-
damus is not a proper substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian
Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). Turning to DeTemple’s
request that he be granted release on bond pending the resolution
2
of his § 2255 motion, we deny the request because other avenues of
relief remain available him. Accordingly, we deny DeTemple’s peti-
tion for mandamus and all pending motions. 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
3
In Re: DeTemple v.
Combined Opinion