USCA4 Appeal: 24-1938 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1938

In re: RICHARD ALLEN PATTERSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1)

Submitted: November 12, 2024 Decided: December 4, 2024

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Allen Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1938 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Patterson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the district court to expedite ruling on his

motion. We conclude that

Patterson 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). In addition, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007).

Because the district court dismissed Patterson’s § 2255 motion before he petitioned

for a writ of mandamus, United States v. Patterson, No. 2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D.

Va. Jan. 18, 2024) (PACER No. 260), Patterson has received the relief he seeks in his

mandamus petition. 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

2