Opinion
No. 20-2228
03-26-2021
In re: STEVE RIDDICK, a/k/a Steven Riddick, Petitioner.
Steve Riddick, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:20-cv-00081-GEC-PMS) Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Riddick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Steve Riddick petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to overturn the denial of his motion for default judgment. We conclude that Riddick 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Riddick seeks an order requiring the district court to overturn the denial of the motion for default judgment he filed in his ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Because Riddick is attempting to use mandamus as a substitute for an interlocutory appeal, the relief he seeks is not available. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny Riddick's motion for injunctive relief. 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