In re Sledge

Fourth Circuit

In re Sledge

33 F. App'x 110

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6053

StatusPublished

This text of 33 F. App'x 110 (In re Sledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Sledge, 33 F. App'x 110 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Sledge, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order requiring a state court to rule on a pending “motion for appropriate relief.” 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 [111]*111have jurisdiction to review 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 do not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Thus, although we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Sledge, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order requiring a state court to rule on a pending “motion for appropriate relief.” 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 [111]*111have jurisdiction to review 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 do not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Thus, although we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 F. App'x 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sledge-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack