Case Name: In re Anthony LAMBERT, Sr., Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-10
Citations: 18 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 01-1511
Parties: In re Anthony LAMBERT, Sr., Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
In re Anthony LAMBERT, Sr., Petitioner.
No. 01-1511.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 31, 2001.
Decided Sept. 10, 2001.
Anthony Lambert, Sr., pro se.
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Lambert, Sr., initiated an action against Edward E. Webb, Kevin L. Byrd, and Gates County, North Carolina (the "Gates County Defendants"), as well as against Trooper E.W. Jones and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, alleging state tort claims and federal constitutional violations stemming from Lambert's arrest at a road block. The Gates County Defendants removed the case to federal court. Lambert then filed an amended complaint that was identical to his original complaint except that references to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) were omitted and sometimes replaced with references to North Carolina law. He then filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The district court denied the motion and Lambert appealed. This court granted the Gates County Defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
Lambert then brought this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to remand the action to state court in North Carolina. Where there is another available remedy, mandamus relief is not available. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Lambert has another available remedy, namely to appeal any unfavorable final district court decision. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (by timely filing motion for remand, litigant did all that was required to preserve his objection to removal). Accordingly, we deny Lambert's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. 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.
PETITION DENIED.