Court Opinion

ID: 9895030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:56.860918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:26.257100
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1967      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1967

        In re: LINWOOD EARL DUFFIE,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:23-hc-02047-D)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

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

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Linwood Earl Duffie, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1967      Doc: 7        Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Linwood Earl Duffie petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

        the district court to consolidate Duffie’s three consecutive prison sentences. 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). 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 (cleaned up). Further, mandamus may not be used as a

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

               The relief Duffie seeks is not available by way of mandamus, and he otherwise fails

        to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks. We therefore deny the mandamus petition.

        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