In re Feurtado v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7511
In Re: ANTHONY FEURTADO,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-99-2582-3-17)
Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 13, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Feurtado, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Feurtado, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to have this court direct the
district court judge to recuse himself. Feurtado’s initial motion
to recuse was denied. He then filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for relief from the judgment denying the motion to recuse, which
also was denied. In addition, he filed motions to reconsider the
denial of the motion to recuse and to reconsider the denial of the
Rule 60(b) motion, both of which were denied. All four rulings
were recently affirmed on appeal. Feurtado v. McNair, No. 00-7253,
2001 WL 125289 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001) (unpublished).
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). A district judge’s
refusal to recuse himself is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1137 (1999). Mandamus applies to ministerial, but
not discretionary, functions of federal officials. See 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1361 (West 2000). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and
should only be used in extraordinary situations. 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 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. Because the motion to
2
recuse and subsequent motions for relief from judgment and recon-
sideration have been denied in the district court and the denial
has been affirmed on appeal, Feurtado has not shown a clear right
to the relief sought. Therefore, 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
3