In Re: David Smith
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999994453-2], denying Motion to supplement writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999970232-2]; denying Motions for other relief [1000004893-2], [999994010-2], [999981835-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02128-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-2323]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DAVID LEE SMITH,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
February 27, 2017
March 1, 2017
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith also seeks an order directing a state
corrections official to release him.
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.
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does
not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.
Pg: 3 of 3
appeal, and for an en banc determination.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?