In re: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1639
In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:22-cv-00019-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: September 12, 2022 Decided: September 29, 2022
Before KING, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering judgment for
Hairston in his suit currently pending in district court. We conclude that Hairston 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). Because Hairston may raise his claims in his currently pending
suit, the relief sought by Hairston 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 --