In re: Bryant Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1460
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1460 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1460

In re: BRYANT MOORE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. (8:11-cv-03644-PWG)

Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Moore, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1460 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Moore petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to vacate the

district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying Moore’s

motions for reconsideration. We conclude that Moore 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).

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 Moore 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