Court Opinion

ID: 9556613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 21:01:28.167821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:18.532460
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1728      Doc: 21         Filed: 08/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1728

        In re: JOHN WILLIAMS MILLER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:20-cv-00844-TMC)

        Submitted: August 7, 2023                                         Decided: August 16, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Williams Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1728       Doc: 21         Filed: 08/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Williams Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

        the district court to reinstate his employment discrimination action and enter judgment in

        his favor. Miller also seeks to strike or revise various entries in the district court’s docket

        report. We conclude that Miller 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 and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted). 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 Miller seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Indeed, he has already

        had an opportunity to appeal the district court’s orders, and we affirmed the denial of relief.

        See Miller v. Apple, Inc., No. 22-2055, 2023 WL 4181279, at *1 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).

        Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition and amended mandamus petition. 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.

                                                                                PETITIONS DENIED

                                                      2