Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01450/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Annie R. Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1450

In Re: ANNIE R. SMITH, on behalf of A. T. (minor),

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00371-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Annie R. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1450 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Annie R. Smith, acting as guardian ad litem for her 

grandson, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

reconsideration of several district court orders and our opinion 

dismissing her consolidated appeals, as well as a state child 

custody decree. We conclude that Smith 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).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

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, D.C. Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

The relief sought by Smith 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 

Appeal: 10-1450 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-1450 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 3 of 3