USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1639

In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR. Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:22-cv-00019-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: September 12, 2022 Decided: September 29, 2022

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering judgment for Hairston in his suit currently pending in district court. We conclude that Hairston 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). Because Hairston may raise his claims in his currently pending suit, the relief sought by Hairston 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