In re: Michael-David Fleming

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --