Court Opinion

ID: 9391100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:34.644967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.434292
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1239      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1239

        In re: DELROY WILLIAMS, JR.,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:17-cr-00336-ELH-1)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Delroy Williams, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1239       Doc: 13         Filed: 04/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Delroy Williams, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this

        court directing the district court to accept for filing two motions that a third party filed on

        Williams’ behalf, without Williams’ signature. We conclude that Williams 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).

               The relief Williams seeks 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