In re: Justin Tyson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1499
In re: JUSTIN MICHAEL TYSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03362-BO)
Submitted: August 2, 2019 Decided: August 20, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justin Michael Tyson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Justin Michael Tyson petitions for a writ of mandamus in his civil case, claiming he
is entitled to compensation for the defendant’s failure to file an answer to his complaint
before it was served on the defendant. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be
reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th
Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide mandamus
relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he]
desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief;
and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a
substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In
re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). We have reviewed the
district court’s docket and conclude that Tyson fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus
relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and pending motions. 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