USCA4 Appeal: 25-1741 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1741

In re: RILEY THORNOCK, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:25-cv-00057-DJN)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Riley Thornock, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1741 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Riley Thornock petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order for declaratory and injunctive relief against three district court judges and the district court’s clerk’s office, and seeking reassignment of various cases Thornock filed in the district court. We conclude that Thornock 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).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Thornock is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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