In re: Frank Gainer, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2398 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2398

In re: FRANK GAINER, JR., Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:25-cv-01782-ABA)

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Gainer, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2398 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Frank Gainer, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has improperly failed to issue summonses in the underlying civil case and unduly delayed in ruling on various postjudgment motions. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act.

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).

Review of the district court’s docket confirms that the district court dismissed the underlying civil action on September 4, 2025. See Gainer v. Maryland, No. 1:25-cv- 01782-ABA (D. Md., PACER No. 21). Thus, Gainer does not have a clear right to the first form relief he seeks, to wit: an order directing the district court to issue summonses. To the extent that Gainer is attempting to use mandamus to challenge the dismissal order, mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.” In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we observe that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the adjudication of Gainer’s postjudgment motions, which have been pending with the district court for less than four months.

For these reasons, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2398 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 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