UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6021
In Re: JONATHAN T. HOUGH
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-990)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan T. Hough, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan T. Hough petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting
that we vacate a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to
amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, which remains pending in
the district court.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
With these standards in mind, we conclude Hough fails to
establish he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny
his 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