UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6499
In Re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(CA-03-70-3; CR-00-24)
Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 22, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., has filed a petition for writ
of mandamus requesting that this court order the recusal of the
Assistant United States Attorney, the magistrate judge, and the
district court judge involved in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Further, mandamus relief is only
available when there are no other means by which the relief sought
could be granted. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Hairston has not shown that the relief sought is not available by
other means. Accordingly, although we grant Hairston’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus. 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 -