Court Opinion

ID: 9899548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:01:04.729395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:38.768116
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1866      Doc: 17         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1866

        In re: ARON J. FREELAND

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. James P. Mazzone, Magistrate Judge.
        (3:23-cv-00063-JPB-JPM, 5:23-cv-00042-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: October 3, 2023                                  Decided: November 15, 2023

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

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Aron J. Freeland, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1866      Doc: 17         Filed: 11/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Aron J. Freeland petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

        district court to conduct a status conference in his consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        proceedings, through which Freeland challenges two state court judgments. We conclude

        that Freeland 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.” In re Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               In these proceedings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the

        district court dismiss Freeland’s § 2254 petitions and deny his motions for a status

        conference. Freeland recently filed objections to the report and requested that the district

        court order his appearance at a hearing before it. Freeland’s conduct thus reflects that he

        has other means to attain the relief that he seeks, i.e., by pursuing his objections to the

        magistrate judge’s report. We are also satisfied that Freeland has not shown that he has a

        clear right to a status conference at this juncture. Accordingly, we deny the petition and

        amended petitions for a 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