Court Opinion

ID: 9892260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-21 21:00:38.495811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:48.019135
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1895      Doc: 18         Filed: 10/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 23-1895

        In re: DALE J. RICHARDSON,

                            Petitioner,

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. (2:22-mc-00637-DCN)

        Submitted: September 26, 2023                                 Decided: October 20, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dale J. Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1895      Doc: 18          Filed: 10/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dale J. Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

        § 3771(d)(3). We conclude that Richardson 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 shows “a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief” and “has no

        other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795

        (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Richardson did not file a proper § 3771

        motion in the district court, so there is no reasonable basis for finding we have jurisdiction

        over Richardson’s petition under § 3771(d)(3). And mandamus generally may not be used

        as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

               The relief Richardson 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