Filed: Apr. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6293 In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an or
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6293 In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an ord..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6293
In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Cameron petitions for a writ of mandamus,
seeking an order to compel Judge Donald M. Haddock of the Circuit
Court for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, to summon and allow
Cameron to confront the person who conducted DNA testing on alleged
evidence stemming from Cameron’s 1987 criminal conviction.
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). This court does not
have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials.
See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,
411 F.2d 586,
587 (4th Cir. 1969).
The relief sought by Cameron 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 before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -