In re: Shaoming Song

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1352
In re: SHAOMING SONG,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:24-cv-03394-GLR)
Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaoming Song, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shaoming Song has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which he asks this
court to review the district court judge’s refusal to recuse himself from adjudicating the
underlying civil action. Song seeks an order (1) directing the district court judge to recuse
himself from the underlying action; and (2) assigning a new judge to preside over Song’s
case. We conclude that Song 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 (cleaned up).
“A district judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this circuit by
way of a petition for a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).
However, “[a] writ of mandamus will not issue when all that is shown is that the district
court abused its discretion when making [a] challenged ruling.” Id. at 826.
We have considered Song’s petition and conclude that he fails to establish a “clear
and indisputable” right to obtaining the relief he seeks. 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

-- 2 of 2 --