In re: Don McKinney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999752198-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999752285-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999743493-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837032]. Mailed to: McKinney. [16-1084]

Appeal: 16-1084

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1084

In Re: DON W. MCKINNEY,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:15-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don W. McKinney, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1084

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Don W. McKinney petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order returning land he alleges was wrongly sold by a state
court

judge.

We

conclude

that

McKinney

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).
relief

This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
against

state

officials,

Gurley

v.

Superior

Court

of

Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does
not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.
of

Columbia

Court

of

Appeals

v.

Feldman,

460

U.S.

462,

482

(1983).
The relief sought by McKinney 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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-1084

Doc: 16

contentions

are

Filed: 05/31/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3