Filed: Dec. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7456 In Re: RONNIE R. LITTLE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie R. Little, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie R. Little petitions for a writ of mandamus see
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7456 In Re: RONNIE R. LITTLE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie R. Little, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie R. Little petitions for a writ of mandamus seek..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7456
In Re: RONNIE R. LITTLE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie R. Little, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie R. Little petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order compelling the North Carolina state court to correct his
sentence calculation. We conclude that Little is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
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). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). This
court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against
state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction
to review final state court orders, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Little 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. 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -
