In re: Bobby Eugene Roddy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2005
In Re: BOBBY EUGENE RODDY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cv-00026-JPB-JSK)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Eugene Roddy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order from this court to discharge his indictment. We
conclude that Roddy is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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 Roddy is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --