In re: Terry Ofori

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2367 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2367

In re: TERRY K. OFORI, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. (7:23-cv-00249-EKD-JCH)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry K. Ofori, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2367 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Terry K. Ofori, a Virginia inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to allow Ofori to amend his complaint in the underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and to rescind the court’s prior severance order. We conclude that Ofori 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 (citation modified).

By opinion and order entered on September 2, 2025, the district court denied Ofori’s most recent motions to amend his complaint and for reconsideration of the court’s prior severance order. See Ofori v. Manis, No. 7:23-cv-00249-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va., PACER No. 48). Because 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 Ofori seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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