
    In re Carol L. PIZZUTO; Greg Givens; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners. In re Carol L. Pizzuto; Greg Givens; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners. In re Carol L. Pizzuto; Greg Givens; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners. In re Carol L. Pizzuto; Greg Givens; Dennis A. Givens, Petitioners.
    Nos. 13-1242, 13-1243, 13-1244, 13-1245.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 25, 2013.
    Decided: July 29, 2013.
    Carol L. Pizzuto, Greg Givens, Dennis, A. Givens, Petitioners Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Petitioners have filed petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition seeking orders requiring removal of a magistrate judge and correction of alleged procedural errors in district court cases. We conclude that Petitioners are 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, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re: Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).

The relief sought by Petitioners is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED.  