UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1564
In Re: WILLIAM C. BOND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:01-cv-02600-MJG)
Submitted: September 5, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William C. Bond petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order for the district court judge to recuse himself
from any further involvement in Bond’s civil case, and an order
vacating all orders entered in this case as a violation of the
recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2012). We conclude that Bond
is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
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). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We hold that the relief sought by Bond is not
available by way of mandamus. Moreover, even considering the
merits of the mandamus petition, we hold that Bond has failed to
establish any basis for mandamus relief. Accordingly, although
we grant leave 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
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3