In re: Dallas Wade Butler

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1418
In re: DALLAS WADE BUTLER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cv-08328)
Submitted: June 13, 2014 Decided: June 19, 2014
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dallas Wade Butler, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dallas Wade Butler petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to order his
immediate release. We conclude that Butler 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). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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 Butler is not available by way of
mandamus.* Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
* To the extent Butler’s filing could be construed as an
appeal of the proposed findings and recommendation entered by
the magistrate judge in his pending case in the district court,
(Continued)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the district
court has not issued a final order. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292
(2012).

-- 3 of 3 --