Court Opinion

ID: 9778351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:01:01.102784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:07.864420
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713      Doc: 10          Filed: 08/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1713

        In re: JULIAN R. ASH,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:22-cv-00649-GLR)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 28, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julian R. Ash, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713        Doc: 10         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Julian R. Ash petitions for a writ of mandamus, raising several challenges to the

        underlying district court proceedings. We conclude that Ash 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 or, in this

        case, a rehearing petition.       See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353

        (4th Cir. 2007).

                  Ash does not satisfy the standard for mandamus relief. 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