In Re: Adib Makdessi v. ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1020
In re: ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cv-00079-GEC-PMS;
7:15-cv-00130-GEC-PMS)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 2, 2016
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking, among other potential forms of relief, an order
directing that he be transferred from Red Onion State Prison on
account of the abusive and retaliatory actions of prison
officials. We conclude that Makdessi is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-
17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only
when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In
re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988).
Makdessi challenged the conduct underlying the instant
petition—and sought a transfer from Red Onion State Prison—in a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action brought in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia. See
Makdessi v. Clarke, No. 7:15-cv-00130-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va.). After
a three-day evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge
recommended rejecting Makdessi’s claims, and the district court
subsequently adopted this recommendation. Makdessi did not file
a notice of appeal from the district court’s dispositive order,
which was entered on March 21, 2016. Mandamus may not be used
2
as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and the instant petition raises
issues that could have been—but were not—pursued in an appeal
from the district court’s order. 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
3