Case Name: In re: Randy L. THOMAS, on behalf of A.T. (minor), Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-30
Citations: 386 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 10-1534
Parties: In re: Randy L. THOMAS, on behalf of A.T. (minor), Petitioner.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 452–452

Head Matter:
In re: Randy L. THOMAS, on behalf of A.T. (minor), Petitioner.
No. 10-1534.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2010.
Decided: June 30, 2010.
Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas, as guardian ad litem for his son, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking reconsideration of a district court order entered in an action filed by Thomas' mother, Annie R. Smith, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), as well as state child custody orders. We conclude that Thomas 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 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, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
The relief sought by Thomas 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 deny Thomas' motion for judicial review and 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.