Filed: Feb. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2346 In re: PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-02099-ELH) Submitted: February 7, 2019 Decided: February 14, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip O’Briant petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking t
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2346 In re: PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-02099-ELH) Submitted: February 7, 2019 Decided: February 14, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip O’Briant petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking th..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2346
In re: PHILLIP O’BRIANT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-02099-ELH)
Submitted: February 7, 2019 Decided: February 14, 2019
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip O’Briant, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip O’Briant petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel the
district court to “fulfil [its] legal obligation under the U.S. Constitution.” “[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. Will v. United States,
389
U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that O’Briant fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, although we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his
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
2