In re: Gregory Savoy ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-1600
    In re: GREGORY SCOTT SAVOY,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:20-cv-00784-LO-IDD)
    Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 24, 2021
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory Scott Savoy, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory Scott Savoy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this
    court directing the district court to correct its order entered on March 4, 2021, or to grant
    his pending motion to alter the judgment. We conclude that Savoy 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). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
    appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
    To the extent that Savoy alleges a delay by the district court in ruling on his
    postjudgment motion, our review of the record does not reveal undue delay in the district
    court. To the extent that Savoy seeks an order from this court directing the district court
    to act, we conclude that the relief sought by Savoy is not available by way of mandamus.
    Accordingly, although we grant Savoy’s motions to correct the mandamus petition and for
    leave to file physical exhibits, we deny the petition for a 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1600

Filed Date: 8/24/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2021