USCA4 Appeal: 24-1943 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1943

In re: MARTIN AKERMAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. (1:22-cv-01258-LMB-WEF)

Submitted: October 31, 2024 Decided: December 13, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Akerman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1943 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Martin Akerman petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to accept his filings in his civil case in which the court previously directed the

district court’s clerk’s office not to accept any more filings. We conclude that Akerman 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). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In

re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Akerman is not available by way of mandamus. The district

court dismissed Akerman’s complaint in this case and he appealed that order. Akerman

then filed a postjudgment motion that the district court denied. In its order denying this

motion, the district court directed the clerk’s office not to accept any more filings in the

case. Akerman could have appealed this order, but he did not. As mandamus may not be

used for a substitute for appeal, Akerman has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to

mandamus relief.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1943 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny the pending motions to correct the docket and 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

3