UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8098
In Re: REGINALD L. FRAZIER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-94-170-4-BO, CA-95-463-HC-BO)
Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: February 26, 1996
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald L. Frazier, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Frazier brought this petition for writ of mandamus
seeking multiple forms of relief. To the extent that Frazier
alleges unreasonable delay in the habeas corpus action proceeding
in the district court, the district court docket sheet reflects no
delay. To the extent that Frazier seeks review of district court
action, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Frazier's
request for an evidentiary hearing before this court is denied.
Frazier makes conclusory allegations of bias on the part of
the district court. He has made no claim which shows that the
district judge has a personal bias which would prevent him from
rendering an impartial decision. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827
(4th Cir. 1987). We also hold that Frazier cannot reopen through
mandamus our decisions in Frazier v. North Carolina State Bar, No.
94-1775 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 1995) (unpublished), or Frazier v. North
Carolina State Bar, No. 95-1233 (4th Cir. June 20, 1995) (unpub-
lished). To the extent that Frazier seeks to challenge the condi-
tions of his confinement, he may file an action in district court
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988).
We grant Frazier leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny
his Motion to Post Supersedeas Bond and Motion for Temporary Stay
and Release on Bail as mootCthe district court granted bail in a
hearing on November 13, 1995. We deny his Motion for Hearing In
Banc because no judge requested a vote on the Motion. Frazier's
petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
2
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