USCA4 Appeal: 25-1476 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1476

In re: ROBERT PAUL SHARPE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

Submitted: June 3, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Paul Sharpe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1476 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Robert Paul Sharpe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the bankruptcy court’s order restricting public access to certain documents Sharpe filed in Port City Contracting Services, Inc.’s bankruptcy case. We conclude that Sharpe is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that Sharpe has not made a sufficient showing to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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