In re: Michael-David: Fleming

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 25-1370
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1370 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1370

In re: MICHAEL-DAVID FLEMING,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. (8:24-cv-00463-LKG)

Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael-David Fleming, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1370 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael-David Fleming petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating

the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Fleming’s civil complaint.

Fleming further requests reassignment to a different district court judge. We conclude that

Fleming 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 Fleming is not available by way of mandamus, as Fleming

essentially seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his case. 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