In re: Judekenneth Orji

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 3, 2026·No. 26-1043·Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1043 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1043

In re: JUDEKENNETH MADUKA ORJI,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. (8:23-cv-02986-LKG)

Submitted: January 30, 2026 Decided: February 3, 2025

Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judekenneth Maduka Orji, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-1043 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Judekenneth Maduka Orji petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

disqualifying Judge Lydia Griggsby from ongoing proceedings in the district court and

reversing certain actions that the district court has taken in those proceedings. We conclude

that Orji 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 and indisputable right to” the relief he seeks and “has no other

adequate means . . . to attain the desired relief.” In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir.

2020) (citation modified). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that Orji has not established that he has an

indisputable right to the relief he seeks, nor that he does not have other means to obtain

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny as moot Orji’s

motion for a stay. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re: Judekenneth Orji, (4th Cir. 2026).

In re: Judekenneth Orji (In re: Judekenneth Orji) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Lockheed Martin Corp.
503 F.3d 351 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
In re: Murphy-Brown, LLC
907 F.3d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 2018)
In re: John Moore
955 F.3d 384 (Fourth Circuit, 2020)