Tarpley v. Waldron

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2003
• Docket: 03-6240
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6240

STEVEN E. TARPLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN M. WALDRON; STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-80-WMN)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Steven E. Tarpley appeals from the district court’s dismissal

of his request for an order requiring a panel of state circuit

court judges in Hartford County, Maryland, to issue an order

reviewing the validity of his criminal sentence. We affirm.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

The district court properly concluded it lacked jurisdiction

to grant the relief sought by Tarpley. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED