UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT In Re: AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD,  INCORPORATED, formerly known as Sunbeam Corporation; STEPHEN T. MOFFETT, Esq., THOMAS L. VITU, Esq., JOHN E. HALL, Esq., R. SCOTT  No. 03-1919 LONG, Esq., and BARBARA A. ALLEN, Esq., Petitioners.  On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-144-5) Argued: September 26, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL ARGUED: John Emmert Hall, Andrew G. Fusco, ECKERT, SEA- MANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, P.L.L., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioners. William J. Hansen, MCDERMOTT, HANSEN & MCLAUGHLIN, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: George E. McLaughlin, MCDERMOTT, HANSEN & MCLAUGHLIN, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Respondents. 2 IN RE: AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD, INC. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is before us on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Peti- tioners assert that mandamus relief is appropriate because the magis- trate judge, to whom the case had been referred, improperly conducted criminal contempt proceedings against them. Petitioners seek an order from this court removing the case from the magistrate judge and directing the district judge to conduct appropriate proceed- ings de novo. After the petition was filed, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on the matters before him, and the parties filed objections to that report. On September 26, 2003, we conducted oral argument on an expedited basis. Four days later, the district judge — having considered the report and the objections — entered an order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Petitioners have now appealed the district court’s order. See Bradley v. American Household, Inc., No. 03-2341. The authorities are uniform that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, which procedure we think is being attempted in this case. We are satisfied and hold that all the claims of error in this case may be reached on their merits by appeal from the decisions and orders of the district court and magistrate judge entered in that case, Bradley et al. v. Sunbeam Corp., No. 5:99CV144 (N.D.W.Va. filed Oct. 21, 1999). In light of these circumstances, we conclude that the petition is now moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. PETITION DISMISSED