In Re: Burney Lee Smith, Petitioner, 16 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 1994)

In these consolidated cases, appellant challenges the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion. In No. 93-7041, we treated his filing as an appeal. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Richmond County Comm'rs, No. CA-92-424-3 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 1993). In No. 93-8058, we treated the filing as a mandamus petition. While we grant Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition because Smith did not show that he had clear right to the relief sought or that the district court had a clear duty to perform the act requested. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We also deny Smith's motion for appointment of counsel. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984). 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.