UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1288
In re: PERCY JAMES TUCKER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:20-cv-00357-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: April 30, 2021 Decided: May 17, 2021
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Percy James Tucker, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy James Tucker petitions for a writ of mandamus in his civil case that was
dismissed without prejudice, asking us to order the district court to “ensure that this case
is heard before a jury trial” and to assign the case to another district judge.
“[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)); see also In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). 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 the district court’s docket and Tucker’s petition, and we conclude
that he fails to show that he is entitled to the requested 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