In Re: Adib Makdessi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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