In Re: Henry T. SANDERS, Petitioner, 235 F. App'x 74

PER CURIAM: Henry T. Sanders petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from this court. We conclude that Sanders is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979), and this court does not have jurisdiction to either grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), or review final state court orders, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The relief sought by Sanders 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED.