In re: Andrew O’darius Rollinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1785
In re: ANDREW O’DARIUS ROLLINSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:23-cv-00191-RJC-DCK)
Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025
Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew O’Darius Rollinson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew O’Darius Rollinson petitions for a writ of mandamus, primarily alleging
that the district court has unduly delayed acting on two motions filed in his civil action.
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has recently denied
those motions. We therefore deny this part of the mandamus petition as moot.
Rollinson also seeks an order directing the district court to, among other things,
timely resolve his claims. However, 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). Finally, 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 Rollinson seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny this part of the mandamus petition. 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 --