In re: John Miller ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1728 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1728
In re: JOHN WILLIAMS MILLER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:20-cv-00844-TMC)
Submitted: August 7, 2023 Decided: August 16, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Williams Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1728 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
John Williams Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to reinstate his employment discrimination action and enter judgment in
his favor. Miller also seeks to strike or revise various entries in the district court’s docket
report. We conclude that Miller 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). 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 Miller seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Indeed, he has already
had an opportunity to appeal the district court’s orders, and we affirmed the denial of relief.
See Miller v. Apple, Inc., No. 22-2055, 2023 WL 4181279, at *1 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).
Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition and amended mandamus 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
2