In re: Michael Owlfeather-Gorbey ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1246 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1246
In re: (CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:22-mc-00019)
Submitted: July 12, 2022 Decided: July 22, 2022
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1246 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order
the district court to take certain actions in his case. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that
must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788,
795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide
mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief
[he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested
relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a
substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In
re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed Owlfeather-Gorbey’s petition and conclude that he fails to show
that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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