In re: Damon Elliott

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1227
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1227 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1227

In re: DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. (8:97-cr-00053-ABA-1)

Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1227 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing

the district court to rule on an unspecified affidavit concerning a witness at Elliott’s 1997

criminal trial. We conclude that Elliott 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Furthermore,

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 (cleaned up).

The relief Elliott seeks 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