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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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