In re: Tennyson Harris

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1714 Doc: 4 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1714
In re: TENNYSON HARRIS, a/k/a Teddy, a/k/a Mark T.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:00-cr-00253-PJM-3)
Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tennyson Harris, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1714 Doc: 4 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Tennyson Harris petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order the district
court to take certain actions in his closed criminal case. “[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 Harris’ petition and conclude that he fails to show that he is
entitled to mandamus relief. 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