Case Name: In Re: Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-19
Citations: 810 F.3d 286
Docket Number: No. 15-2005
Parties: In Re: Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner.
Judges: Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 810
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
In Re: Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner.
No. 15-2005.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.
Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.
Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
The relief sought by Roddy is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED