UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1450
In Re: ANNIE R. SMITH, on behalf of A. T. (minor),
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00371-RJC-DCK)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Annie R. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Annie R. Smith, acting as guardian ad litem for her
grandson, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
reconsideration of several district court orders and our opinion
dismissing her consolidated appeals, as well as a state child
custody decree. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 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).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
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, D.C. Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Smith 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
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3