Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02005/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Eugene Roddy
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2005

In Re: BOBBY EUGENE RODDY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cv-00026-JPB-JSK)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2005 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Roddy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order from this court to discharge his indictment. We 

conclude that Roddy 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 

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 Roddy 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 

Appeal: 15-2005 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-2005 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3