In Re: William Pumphrey, No. 19-1330 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1330 In re: WILLIAM C. PUMPHREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-cv-14430) Submitted: July 9, 2019 Decided: July 17, 2019 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Pumphrey, Petitioner Pro Se. Matthew Charles Lindsey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William C. Pumphrey petitions for a writ of mandamus in his civil case, asking this court to order the district court not to proceed further in the case without considering his untimely filed objections. “[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 the district court’s docket and conclude that Pumphrey fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.