In re: Mawule Tepe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 26, 2024
• Docket: 24-1410
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1410 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1410

In re: MAWULE TEPE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:23-cv-00423-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: June 18, 2024 Decided: July 26, 2024

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mawule Tepe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1410 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mawule Tepe petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court

directing the district court to rule on his motion to vacate and to grant the relief requested

in his motion to challenge. We conclude that Tepe 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 Tepe is not available by way of mandamus. 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