T. Bryan v. Mylinda Nettle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cv-00027-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998512987] [10-7604]

Case: 10-7604

Document: 5

Date Filed: 01/28/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7604

T. TERELL BRYAN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MYLINDA D. NETTLES, Hampton County Clerk of Court;
HONORABLE MICHAEL G. NETTLES; SALLEY W. ELLIOTT, Assistant
Deputy General,
Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:10-cv-00027-TLW).

Submitted:

January 18, 2011

Decided:

January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7604

Document: 5

Date Filed: 01/28/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Terence

Terell

Bryan

appeals

the

district

court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing his mandamus petition.

In his petition, Bryan

sought to compel production of a “59(e)” motion from a South
Carolina state court.

The district court dismissed his petition
Bryan v. Nettles, No.

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4:10-cv-00027-TLW

(D.S.C.

July

21,

2010).

On

appeal,

Bryan

admits that he filed his mandamus petition in the wrong court
and requests a transfer to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s
order and deny Bryan’s motion to transfer his petition to the
South Carolina Supreme Court.
The

federal

courts

may

not

exercise

supervisory

authority over state courts and lack jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus compelling action by state courts.

See Gurley v.

Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969).

Therefore,

properly

declined

as

to

Bryan

issue

a

concedes,
writ

of

the

district

mandamus.

court

Further,

a

federal court lacks authority to transfer a case over which it
lacks

jurisdiction

to

state

court.

28

U.S.C.

§§ 610,

1631

(2006); see also Moravian Sch. Advisory Bd. v. Rawlins, 70 F.3d
270, 274 (3d Cir. 1995).

Thus, we may not transfer Bryan’s

action to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
2

Case: 10-7604

Document: 5

Date Filed: 01/28/2011

Page: 3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
deny

Bryan’s

motion

to

Carolina Supreme Court.

transfer

his

petition

to

the

South

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.
AFFIRMED

3