Court Opinion

ID: 9947135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:34.090388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:00.207738
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7130      Doc: 6         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7130

        YIMOE NITYA SIDDHA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; COURT REPORTERS’ OFFICE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (No. 1:23-cv-02104-PJM)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                        Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Yimoe Siddha, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7130         Doc: 6      Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Yimoe Siddha appeals the district court’s order denying his request for a writ of

        mandamus directing state and county officials to provide Siddha with documents related

        to his criminal case. As federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against

        state officials, the district court correctly denied Siddha’s request. See Gurley v. Superior

        Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order. Siddha v. Off. of the Att’y Gen., No. 1:23-cv-02104-PJM (D. Md.

        Oct. 13, 2023). 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.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2