In re: Abram D. Braveboy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1673
In re: ABRAM D. BRAVEBOY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Greenville. (8:23-cv-06104-TMC)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abram D. Braveboy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adam D. Braveboy, a South Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order granting relief from his criminal judgment. We conclude that Braveboy
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).
The relief sought by Braveboy is not available by way of mandamus. To the extent
Braveboy seeks to appeal the district court’s January 2024 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition as successive and unauthorized, mandamus may not be used as a substitute
for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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 --