In Re: Douglas Charnock, Jr. v. , 588 F. App'x 221 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2100
In re: DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 2:14-CV-00229-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order to stay the entry of judgment in his
pending divorce proceeding in state court. We conclude that
Charnock 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 (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 (1983).
The relief sought by Charnock is not available by way
of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
also deny Charnock’s motions to intervene and expedite as moot.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3