                                      UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-1497


In re: DAVID L. SMITH,

             Petitioner.



                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
                                (No. 5:17-ct-03086-D)


Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: July 31, 2017


Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to investigate the decisions of district court judges and a North Carolina

clemency administrator in proceedings related to his state conviction. Smith also seeks

an order reducing his state sentence to time served. We conclude that Smith 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).

Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state

officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 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 Smith 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




                                            2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.



                                                                  PETITION DENIED




                                          3
