UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7188
In Re: BOBBY HAZEL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-93-62-A, CA-97-633-AM)
Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Hazel, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Hazel has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court direct the respondents to review their
denial of Hazel’s prior petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus
relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to
the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy
and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only available when
there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as
a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958,
960 (4th Cir. 1979). Hazel has not shown he has a clear right to
the relief sought.
Accordingly, although we grant Hazel’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. 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