In re: Frank Gainer, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2398
In re: FRANK GAINER, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:25-cv-01782-ABA)
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Gainer, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Frank Gainer, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has improperly failed to issue summonses in the underlying civil case and unduly delayed
in ruling on various postjudgment motions. He seeks an order from this court directing the
district court to act.
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).
Review of the district court’s docket confirms that the district court dismissed the
underlying civil action on September 4, 2025. See Gainer v. Maryland, No. 1:25-cv-
01782-ABA (D. Md., PACER No. 21). Thus, Gainer does not have a clear right to the first
form relief he seeks, to wit: an order directing the district court to issue summonses. To
the extent that Gainer is attempting to use mandamus to challenge the dismissal order,
mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.” In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we observe that the present record does not reveal
undue delay in the adjudication of Gainer’s postjudgment motions, which have been
pending with the district court for less than four months.
For these reasons, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --