Filed: Apr. 01, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6240 STEVEN E. TARPLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. WALDRON; STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-80-WMN) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6240 STEVEN E. TARPLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. WALDRON; STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-80-WMN) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6240
STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN M. WALDRON; STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-80-WMN)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his request for an order requiring a panel of state circuit
court judges in Hartford County, Maryland, to issue an order
reviewing the validity of his criminal sentence. We affirm.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
The district court properly concluded it lacked jurisdiction
to grant the relief sought by Tarpley. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. 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
2
