In re: Terry K. Ofori

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2367
In re: TERRY K. OFORI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. (7:23-cv-00249-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry K. Ofori, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terry K. Ofori, a Virginia inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the district court to allow Ofori to amend his complaint in the underlying 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action and to rescind the court’s prior severance order. We conclude that
Ofori 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 (citation modified).
By opinion and order entered on September 2, 2025, the district court denied Ofori’s
most recent motions to amend his complaint and for reconsideration of the court’s prior
severance order. See Ofori v. Manis, No. 7:23-cv-00249-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va., PACER
No. 48). Because 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 Ofori seeks is not available by
way of mandamus. 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 --