Court Opinion

ID: 9909679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 21:00:40.450561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:08.369344
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2011      Doc: 7          Filed: 12/12/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-2011

        In re: DARREL R. FISHER,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:18-ct-03064-BO)

        Submitted: October 27, 2023                                 Decided: December 12, 2023

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

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrel R. Fisher, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2011       Doc: 7        Filed: 12/12/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Darrel R. Fisher has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district

        court’s order dismissing his Bivens ∗ action without prejudice for failure to comply with a

        court order. We conclude that Fisher 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). Fisher seeks relief from the district court’s order dismissing his

        Bivens action. However, 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 Fisher 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

               ∗
                   Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
        (1971).

                                                     2