UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1320
In Re: ALFRED T. THOMAS; RANDY L. THOMAS, As Guardian Ad
Litem,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cv-00238-GCM)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred T. Thomas, Randy L. Thomas, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfred T. Thomas, through his Guardian Ad Litem, Randy
L. Thomas, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
reconsideration of a district court order and our opinion
affirming the order, as well as an order vacating a child
custody decree. We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner
has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further,
mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief
against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have
jurisdiction to review final state court orders, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
2
deny Thomas’ “motion to enjoin new defendant” and 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