In re: Robert Foster

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 5, 2023
Docket22-1952
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: Robert Foster (In re: Robert Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Robert Foster, (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1952 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1952

In re: ROBERT LEE FOSTER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (9:22-cv-02023-TMC-MHC; 9:21-cv-03332-TMC; 7:21-cv-02910-TMC)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: January 5, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Foster, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1952 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Foster petitions for a writ of mandamus, referencing his habeas and civil

actions in the district court and arguing that he is entitled to relief. “[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 Foster’s mandamus petition and supplement, and we conclude

that he fails to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. 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

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

Related

Will v. United States
389 U.S. 90 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Lockheed Martin Corp.
503 F.3d 351 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
In re: Murphy-Brown, LLC
907 F.3d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Robert Foster, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-foster-ca4-2023.