Case Name: IN RE: Dennis Ray GRAVES, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 683 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 16-2081
Parties: IN RE: Dennis Ray GRAVES, Petitioner.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
IN RE: Dennis Ray GRAVES, Petitioner.
No. 16-2081
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Dennis Ray Graves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Ray Graves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the state court to vacate his convictions and sentence. We conclude that Graves 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 Cty., 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 Graves in r.iot available by way of mandamus. Accordingly1', although we granLfhyav*) lejsve to proceed in forma par^eris, we &ny the petition for '*wnt'i3?mándarnus'> %e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions Sie adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED