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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC,

(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,

(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.,

(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,

(1971).

2