UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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