                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-1074


In re: DERRICK TOOMER,

                    Petitioner.



               On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:18-cv-01252-DKC)


Submitted: March 14, 2019                                         Decided: March 19, 2019


Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick Toomer, Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Derrick Toomer, a Maryland state prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing his immediate release and payment of punitive damages for his

allegedly unlawful confinement.      He also seeks to file criminal charges against a

Maryland state institution and lay the groundwork for a civil action. We conclude that

Toomer 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),

and 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).

      The relief sought by Toomer 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                     PETITION DENIED




                                             2
