Case Name: IN RE: Larry Ray MITCHELL, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-19
Citations: 673 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 16-1959
Parties: IN RE: Larry Ray MITCHELL, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
IN RE: Larry Ray MITCHELL, Petitioner.
No. 16-1959
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: January 19, 2017
Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order for his immediate release. We conclude that Mitchell 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). 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 Mitchell is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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