In re: Ubong Christopher Ubokudom; J.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2318
In re: UBONG CHRISTOPHER UBOKUDOM; J.,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:25-cv-12608-SAL-PJG)
Submitted: December 16, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2026
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ubong Christopher Ubokudom, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ubong Christopher Ubokudom, on behalf of himself and his minor daughter,
petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling
on their pending motions for appointment of counsel and other relief in Ubokudom v.
Walmart, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-12608-SAL-PJG (D.S.C. filed Sept. 17, 2025). Petitioners seek
an order directing the district court to act. Additionally, Petitioners ask this court to appoint
counsel and to grant various forms of injunctive relief in their pending civil action.
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 (citation modified).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Moreover,
Petitioners fail to show that they are otherwise entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Petitioners’ pending motions.
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 --