Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this, circuit.

' Raymond Griffin petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to grant him relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We conclude that Griffin is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in. extraordinary circumstances. Ke rr 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).

’ The'relief sought by Griffin 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.