Court Opinion

ID: 9352567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 21:00:36.152766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:48.844299
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1952      Doc: 29         Filed: 01/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-1952

        In re: ROBERT LEE FOSTER,

                            Petitioner.

                                 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
                (9:22-cv-02023-TMC-MHC; 9:21-cv-03332-TMC; 7:21-cv-02910-TMC)

        Submitted: December 20, 2022                                      Decided: January 5, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Lee Foster, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1952       Doc: 29          Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Lee Foster petitions for a writ of mandamus, referencing his habeas and civil

        actions in the district court and arguing that he is entitled to relief. “[M]andamus is a drastic

        remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,

        907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts

        provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain

        the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the

        requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”

        Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of

        mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389

        U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

               We have reviewed Foster’s mandamus petition and supplement, and we conclude

        that he fails to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. 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