In re: Michael Owlfeather-Gorbey

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1246 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1246

In re: (CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:22-mc-00019)

Submitted: July 12, 2022 Decided: July 22, 2022

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1246 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order

the district court to take certain actions in his case. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that

must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788,

795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide

mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief

[he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested

relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a

substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In

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

We have reviewed Owlfeather-Gorbey’s petition and conclude that he fails to show

that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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