Terrell Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus on two grounds. First, Rogers appears to allege undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion and second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district to act. We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court.

Next, Rogers also requests that this court modify or vacate the district court’s order denying his first § 2255 motion. 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), and 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 Rogers is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.