Court Opinion

ID: 9375233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:42.308755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.087476
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1081      Doc: 5          Filed: 02/24/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1081

        In re: JONI RAMO ANTONELLI; JONATHAN DAVID CROSS,

                            Petitioners.

                    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-mc-00022-MR-WCM)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joni Ramo Antonelli, Jonathan David Cross, Petitioners Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1081      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joni Ramo Antonelli and Jonathan David Cross petition for a writ of mandamus

        seeking an order directing the district court to rescind the judgment dismissing their

        miscellaneous court filling and grant relief. We conclude that Antonelli and Cross are not

        entitled to mandamus relief.

               Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.

        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 Antonelli and Cross is not available by way of mandamus.

        Accordingly, 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

                                                     2