UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT In Re: RONALD A. WILSON, No. 95-8099 Petitioner.

In Re: RONALD A. WILSON, No. 95-8101 Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-824; CA-95-2083-L) Submitted: December 29, 1995 Decided: May 22, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Ronald A. Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Ronald A. Wilson petitions this court for mandamus relief in two cases in the district court. In No. 95-8099, Wilson complains that there has been excessive delay in resolving his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), and that his motions for appointment of counsel have been denied. He also alleges that the district court judge hearing the case is biased against him because Wilson has filed two other mandamus petitions involving the judge and because two of Wilson's cases involve conflicting defenses. Case No. 95-8101 stems from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action Wilson filed in the district court. He asks that this court order the district court to grant no further extensions of time to Defendant and that a new district judge be assigned to the case.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary cir- cumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The writ is not available as a substitute for an appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

Petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other means of obtaining relief and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Baker (In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n), 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

In No. 95-8099, the magistrate judge issued a report and recom- mendation on October 6, 1995. Thus, there is no inordinate delay.

Wilson may obtain review of the district court's refusal to appoint counsel on appeal. Therefore, he has not shown that he has no other adequate means of relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Wilson's conclusory allegations of judicial bias do not suffi- ciently allege a personal bias which would prevent the district judge from rendering an impartial decision. Id. at 827.

In No. 95-8101, the case was reassigned to another district judge, and judgment has been rendered. Thus, Wilson's complaints are moot. We grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his petitions for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED