In Re: Anthony Dove

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999772560-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999766364-2] Originating case number: Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836822]. Mailed to: A. Dove. [16-1221]

Appeal: 16-1221

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1221

In Re:

ANTHONY DOVE,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dove, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1221

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dove petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order compelling the State of North Carolina to allow him to
file a new motion for appropriate relief.

We conclude that Dove

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).
This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief

against

state

officials,

Gurley

v.

Superior

Court

of

Mecklenburg Cnty., 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
mandamus.

relief

sought

by

Dove

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

of

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-1221

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 05/31/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3