Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Porter petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to grant relief on Porter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We conclude that Porter 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). Finally, 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 Porter is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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