In re: Damon Emanuel Elliott

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1227
In re: DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. (8:97-cr-00053-ABA-1)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing
the district court to rule on an unspecified affidavit concerning a witness at Elliott’s 1997
criminal trial. We conclude that Elliott 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Furthermore,
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).
The relief Elliott seeks 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 of 2 --