Gary Ivan Terry petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court judge to vacate its orders denying Terry’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and assign his § 2255 proceedings to a different district court judge. We conclude that Terry is not entitled to relief.

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). Further, mandamus 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); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is well-established that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Terry is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny Terry’s petition for a 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.

PETITION DENIED.