
    IN RE: Celeste G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton, Petitioner.
    No. 17-1593
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2017
    Decided: June 22, 2017
    Celeste G. Broughton, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Celeste G. Broughton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to cancel a scheduled hearing and hold a jury trial, and compelling recusal of the district court judge. We conclude that Broughton is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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). Here, the district court granted Brough-ton’s motion to cancel the hearing and transferred the case to a different district court judge. Therefore, Broughton’s request for a writ of mandamus regarding those issues is moot.

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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED  