USCA4 Appeal: 23-1918 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1918
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. (5:10-hc-02234-D; 5:18-hc-02099-FL; 5:18-ct-
03165-FL; 5:18-ct-03149-FL; 5:21-ct-03186-D; 5:19-hc-02340-M)
Submitted: October 17, 2023 Decided: February 12, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrel R. Fisher, Petitioner Pro Se. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1918 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Darrel R. Fisher petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the
clerk of the federal district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina to serve process
on the defendants and respondents in several cases. 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). At bottom, Fisher seeks relief from the district court rulings in
these cases. 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
2
In re: Darrel Fisher
Combined Opinion