In re: Marie Becton ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1547
In re: MARIE A. BECTON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:21-cv-00449-D)
Submitted: August 8, 2024 Decided: August 19, 2024
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie A. Becton, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marie A. Becton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to grant her the relief she requested in her dismissed complaint against the
Commissioner of Social Security. We conclude that Becton 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). 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 sought by Becton is not available by way of mandamus. Becton had an
adequate means—a direct appeal—to attain the relief she desires. In fact, she did appeal
the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, but she did so too late. She cannot cure her
failure to note a timely appeal through this petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly,
we deny the 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
2