In re: Paul Boyne

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: 22-2214
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2214 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/13/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2214

In re: PAUL BOYNE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00905-MSN-WEF; 1:22-cv-01021-MSN-WEF; 1:22-cv-01182-MSN-WEF; 1:22-cv-01183-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: November 30, 2022 Decided: December 13, 2022

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Boyne, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2214 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/13/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Boyne petitions for a writ of mandamus from this court. In his mandamus

petition, Boyne asks that this court (1) direct District Court Judge Michael Stefan

Nachmanoff to allow Boyne to prosecute his federal civil rights actions without

prepayment of fees; and (2) disqualify Judge Nachmanoff from overseeing Boyne’s

actions.

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 (cleaned up).

We have reviewed Boyne’s petition and conclude that Boyne has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We also deny Boyne’s motion

to disqualify. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). 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