In re: Chauncey Hollis

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1041 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1041 In re: CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER HOLLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:23-cr-00223-TDS-1) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey Alexander Hollis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1041 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Chauncey Alexander Hollis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requesting that this court enter default judgment against the United States and the district court judge. We conclude that Hollis 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 sought by Hollis 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