Filed: Jun. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7716 LONNIE LEE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3440-3-13BC) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonn
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7716 LONNIE LEE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3440-3-13BC) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonni..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7716
LONNIE LEE RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-3440-3-13BC)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lonnie Lee Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Lee Richardson filed this petition for a writ of man-
damus requesting the district court intervene in South Carolina
state court proceedings. The district court dismissed the petition
without prejudice on the basis that federal courts have no general
power to compel action by state officials. This decision was cor-
rect. See 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994); Davis v. Lansing,
851 F.2d 72,
74 (2d Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny as moot
Richardson’s motions to change the caption and for speedy adjudi-
cation. 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