Court Opinion

ID: 4690759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-27 19:02:53.779198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:01.257255
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-1002

In re: DAVANTI ALEXANDER ROGERS,

                    Petitioner.

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
                        (5:18-cr-00209-FL-1; 5:19-cv-00474-FL)

Submitted: May 25, 2021                                           Decided: May 27, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davanti Alexander Rogers, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Davanti Alexander Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

directing the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion which is currently pending in that court. We conclude that Rogers is 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.

       The relief sought by Rogers 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