Court Opinion

ID: 5127666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-19 20:01:22.844078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:16.793144
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-1992

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

                     Petitioner.

                On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02211-BA)

Submitted: November 18, 2021                                Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that a number

of errors occurred during his criminal proceedings. We conclude that Davis 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).

       Davis may not challenge his criminal convictions 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