Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1959 In re: LARRY RAY MITCHELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:16-ct-03057-D) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus see
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1959 In re: LARRY RAY MITCHELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:16-ct-03057-D) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus seek..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1959
In re: LARRY RAY MITCHELL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:16-ct-03057-D)
Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order for his immediate release. We conclude that Mitchell
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 relief sought by Mitchell is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3
