UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: RONALD A. WILSON,
                                                                      No. 95-8099
Petitioner.

In Re: RONALD A. WILSON,
                                                                      No. 95-8101
Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-94-824; CA-95-2083-L)

Submitted: December 29, 1995

Decided: May 22, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, WIDENER and
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald A. Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Ronald A. Wilson petitions this court
for mandamus relief in two cases in the district court. In No. 95-8099,
Wilson complains that there has been excessive delay in resolving his
habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), and that his motions
for appointment of counsel have been denied. He also alleges that the
district court judge hearing the case is biased against him because
Wilson has filed two other mandamus petitions involving the judge
and because two of Wilson's cases involve conflicting defenses. Case
No. 95-8101 stems from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action Wilson
filed in the district court. He asks that this court order the district
court to grant no further extensions of time to Defendant and that a
new district judge be assigned to the case.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary cir-
cumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist., 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). The writ is not available as a substitute for an
appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
Petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other
means of obtaining relief and that his right to such relief is clear and
indisputable. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Baker (In re First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass'n), 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

In No. 95-8099, the magistrate judge issued a report and recom-
mendation on October 6, 1995. Thus, there is no inordinate delay.
Wilson may obtain review of the district court's refusal to appoint
counsel on appeal. Therefore, he has not shown that he has no other
adequate means of relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
1987). Wilson's conclusory allegations of judicial bias do not suffi-
ciently allege a personal bias which would prevent the district judge
from rendering an impartial decision. Id. at 827.

In No. 95-8101, the case was reassigned to another district judge,
and judgment has been rendered. Thus, Wilson's complaints are
moot. We grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny
his petitions for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                    2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

PETITIONS DENIED

                    3
