UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1534
In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS, on behalf of A.T. (minor),
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:07-cv-00544-GCM)
Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 30, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas, as guardian ad litem for his son,
petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking reconsideration of a
district court order entered in an action filed by Thomas’
mother, Annie R. Smith, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), as
well as state child custody orders. We conclude that Thomas 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 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 for judicial review 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