USCA4 Appeal: 25-1000 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/05/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1000

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: January 22, 2025 Decided: February 5, 2025

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-1000 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/05/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Martin Akerman petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to accept his filings in a civil case in which the court previously directed the district court’s clerk’s office not to accept any more filings.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. United States 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). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief Akerman seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Indeed, Akerman previously filed a mandamus petition seeking the same relief, and we denied that petition.

In re Ackerman, No. 24-1943, 2024 WL 5102863 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024). For the same reason, we deny Akerman’s pending motions, and we deny the mandamus petition. 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