USCA4 Appeal: 22-1586 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1586
In re: WILLIAM WHITTMAN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:21-cv-03156-JRR)
Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Whittman, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1586 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
William Whittman petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to reverse its order of arbitration. We conclude that Whittman 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 (cleaned up).
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 Whittman 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