In re: Lodise Wadley

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2259 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2259 In re: Lodise Wadley, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. (1:20-cv-00020-JPB-JPM) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lodise Wadley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2259 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lodise Wadley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying reconsideration and directing the district court to transfer his case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We conclude that Wadley is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Wadley is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 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