In re: Marco Terrell HUTCHINSON, Petitioner, 256 F. App'x 617

PER CURIAM: Marco Terrell Hutchinson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling his criminal trial attorney and the Government’s attorney to provide him with certain materials. We conclude that Hutchinson is not entitled to mandamus 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, only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “Mandamus ‘has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to confíne an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’ ” United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516 (4th Cir.2003) (quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967)). 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 Hutchinson is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED.