Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Lateef Fisher filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to order the Federal Public Defender’s Office to turn over discovery to him related to his 2015 drug convictions. We conclude that Fisher 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).

Fisher filed a motion for release of discovery materials in the district court that the court denied after Fisher filed this petition for writ of mandamus. To the extent that Fisher sought an order alleging undue delay, the petition is moot. Further, 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 Fisher is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, 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