UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1511
In Re: ANTHONY LAMBERT, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-60-2-BO)
Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Lambert, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lambert, Sr., initiated an action against Edward E.
Webb, Kevin L. Byrd, and Gates County, North Carolina (the “Gates
County Defendants”), as well as against Trooper E. W. Jones and
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, alleging state tort
claims and federal constitutional violations stemming from
Lambert’s arrest at a road block. The Gates County Defendants
removed the case to federal court. Lambert then filed an amended
complaint that was identical to his original complaint except that
references to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2000) were omitted and sometimes replaced with refer-
ences to North Carolina law. He then filed a motion to remand the
case to state court. The district court denied the motion and
Lambert appealed. This court granted the Gates County Defendants’
motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
Lambert then brought this petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to remand the action
to state court in North Carolina. Where there is another available
remedy, mandamus relief is not available. In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Lambert has another available remedy,
namely to appeal any unfavorable final district court decision.
See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (by timely
filing motion for remand, litigant did all that was required to
preserve his objection to removal). Accordingly, we deny Lambert’s
2
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3