Case Name: In re: Walter Frank AGEE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-28
Citations: 413 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 10-2371
Parties: In re: Walter Frank AGEE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 413
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
In re: Walter Frank AGEE, Petitioner.
No. 10-2371.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2011.
Walter Frank Agee, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Frank Agee, a West Virginia prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the state court to grant him a new trial. We conclude that Agee is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 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 County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, as amended. 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 DISMISSED.