USCA4 Appeal: 24-1673 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1673

In re: ABRAM D. BRAVEBOY, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at Greenville. (8:23-cv-06104-TMC)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abram D. Braveboy, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1673 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Adam D. Braveboy, a South Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order granting relief from his criminal judgment. We conclude that Braveboy 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).

The relief sought by Braveboy is not available by way of mandamus. To the extent Braveboy seeks to appeal the district court’s January 2024 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive and unauthorized, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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