Gregory Scott Savoy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to correct its order entered on March 4, 2021, or to grant his pending motion to alter the judgment. We conclude that Savoy 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, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (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). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
To the extent that Savoy alleges a delay by the district court in ruling on his postjudgment motion, our review of the record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. To the extent that Savoy seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act, we conclude that the relief sought by Savoy is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Savoys motions to correct the mandamus petition and for leave to file physical exhibits, 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
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.