In re: Judekenneth Maduka Orji

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1043
In re: JUDEKENNETH MADUKA ORJI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. (8:23-cv-02986-LKG)
Submitted: January 30, 2026 Decided: February 3, 2025
Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Judekenneth Maduka Orji, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Judekenneth Maduka Orji petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
disqualifying Judge Lydia Griggsby from ongoing proceedings in the district court and
reversing certain actions that the district court has taken in those proceedings. We conclude
that Orji 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 and indisputable right to” the relief he seeks and “has no other
adequate means . . . to attain the desired relief.” In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir.
2020) (citation modified). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Upon review of the record, we conclude that Orji has not established that he has an
indisputable right to the relief he seeks, nor that he does not have other means to obtain
relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny as moot Orji’s
motion for a stay. 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 --