In re: George E. McDermott

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2113
In Re: GEORGE E. MCDERMOTT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:10-cv-01111-AW)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. McDermott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George E. McDermott petitions for a writ of mandamus
and prohibition challenging the district court’s remand of a
foreclosure case to the state court and requesting that this
court order the case to be transferred to a federal district
court outside Maryland. We conclude that McDermott 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). 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). The relief sought by McDermott
is not available by way of mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
(2006) (stating that order remanding case to the state court
from which it was removed is not reviewable, on appeal or
otherwise). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition and amended petition for
writ of mandamus and prohibition. We also deny McDermott’s
motion to clarify this court’s docket. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --