Opinion
22-1952
01-05-2023
In re: ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Petitioner.
Robert Lee Foster, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 20, 2022
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (9:22-cv-02023-TMC-MHC; 9:21-cv-03332-TMC; 7:21-cv-02910-TMC)
Robert Lee Foster, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.