USCA4 Appeal: 21-2382 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2382

In re: EDWARD ZINNER, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:17-cr-00003-RCY-DEM-1)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward M. Zinner, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2382 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Edward Zinner petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing and to require named government officers to respond to his demands related to a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court. Zinner 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). Moreover, 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 sought by Zinner 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