`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 20-1734
`
`
`In re: RICHARD B. MARTIN, JR.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
`
`
`Submitted: January 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Decided: January 26, 2021
`
`
`
`Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
`
`
`Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`Richard B. Martin, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`Richard B. Martin, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
`
`the State of Maryland to recall a bench warrant issued for his arrest, to reverse his criminal
`
`conviction, and to dismiss the criminal proceeding against him with prejudice. We
`
`conclude that we lack jurisdiction to grant Martin’s requested relief.
`
`Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
`
`circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
`
`LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
`
`the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. This
`
`court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state courts, Gurley v.
`
`Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam), or to
`
`review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
`
`Martin has not identified any respondent over which we may exercise jurisdiction,
`
`and our review reveals that we lack authority to grant the relief Martin seeks. See Fed. R.
`
`App. P. 21(a)(1), (b)(1); see also Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016)
`
`(noting our obligation to address jurisdiction sua sponte). Accordingly, we deny Martin’s
`
`original and amended petitions for writ of mandamus. We deny Martin’s motions to seal,
`
`to strike, and to file ex parte. We deny as moot Martin’s motions seeking service by the
`
`U.S. Marshals Service. 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`PETITION DENIED
`
`