In re: Darrel Fisher ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2011 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2011
In re: DARREL R. FISHER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:18-ct-03064-BO)
Submitted: October 27, 2023 Decided: December 12, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrel R. Fisher, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2011 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Darrel R. Fisher has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district
court’s order dismissing his Bivens ∗ action without prejudice for failure to comply with a
court order. We conclude that Fisher 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). Fisher seeks relief from the district court’s order dismissing his
Bivens action. However, 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 Fisher seeks is not available by way of mandamus. 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
∗
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388(1971).
2