In re: Adrienne Mallard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1727
In re: ADRIENNE MALLARD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: September 13, 2021
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrienne Mallard, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adrienne Mallard petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking review of judgments
entered in Virginia and Maryland state courts arising from cases relating to a work-related
injury that Mallard sustained in 2014. We conclude that Mallard 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). This court does not have jurisdiction to review state court
orders. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Therefore, the
relief sought by Mallard is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for a 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 --