T. Terell Bryan v. MYLINDA D. NETTLES, Hampton County Clerk of Court

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7604
T. TERELL BRYAN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MYLINDA D. NETTLES, Hampton County Clerk of Court;
HONORABLE MICHAEL G. NETTLES; SALLEY W. ELLIOTT, Assistant
Deputy General,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:10-cv-00027-TLW).
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terence Terell Bryan appeals the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing his mandamus petition. In his petition, Bryan
sought to compel production of a “59(e)” motion from a South
Carolina state court. The district court dismissed his petition
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bryan v. Nettles, No.
4:10-cv-00027-TLW (D.S.C. July 21, 2010). On appeal, Bryan
admits that he filed his mandamus petition in the wrong court
and requests a transfer to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s
order and deny Bryan’s motion to transfer his petition to the
South Carolina Supreme Court.
The federal courts may not exercise supervisory
authority over state courts and lack jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus compelling action by state courts. See Gurley v.
Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969). Therefore, as Bryan concedes, the district court
properly declined to issue a writ of mandamus. Further, a
federal court lacks authority to transfer a case over which it
lacks jurisdiction to state court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 610, 1631
(2006); see also Moravian Sch. Advisory Bd. v. Rawlins, 70 F.3d
270, 274 (3d Cir. 1995). Thus, we may not transfer Bryan’s
action to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
deny Bryan’s motion to transfer his petition to the South
Carolina Supreme Court. 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

-- 3 of 3 --