In Re: Adib Makdessi


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999731878-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00079-GEC-PMS,7:15-cv-00130-GEC-PMS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999840701]. Mailed to: A. Makdessi. [16-1020]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1020 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1020 In re: ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, Petitioner.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1020 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 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 We officials. abusive and conclude retaliatory that Makdessi actions is not of prison 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, 51617 (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. District § 1983 Court (2012) the Western brought in States Makdessi v. Clarke, No. 7:15-cv-00130-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va.). After a judge hearing, of United See evidentiary District the Virginia. three-day for action the magistrate 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. 2 Mandamus may not be used Appeal: 16-1020 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 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. petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?