Case Name: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Jerry Oliver; South Carolina, State of, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-21
Citations: 466 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 11-2162
Parties: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Jerry Oliver; South Carolina, State of, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Jerry Oliver; South Carolina, State of, Defendants.
No. 11-2162.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 21, 2012.
Don Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Reyburn Williams Lominack, III, C. Frederick W. Manning, II, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Don Boyd appeals the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's reports, dismissing his claims against the State of South Carolina and Jerry Oliver for lack of jurisdiction, and granting summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v. Angelica Textile Servs., No. 3:10-cv-00872-JFA, 2011 WL 891307 (D.S.C. Mar. 11) & 2011 WL 4368550 (Sept. 19, 2011). We deny Boyd's petition for writ of mandamus, as we conclude that Boyd does not have a clear right to the relief sought. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) (mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary situations); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988) (mandamus may be sought where petitioner shows clear right to requested relief, respondent has a clear duty to comply, and there is no other remedy). 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.
AFFIRMED.