In Re: Dallas Wade Butler, No. 14-1418 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1418 In re: DALLAS WADE BUTLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: June 13, 2014 (2:14-cv-08328) Decided: June 19, 2014 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dallas Wade Butler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dallas Wade Butler petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing immediate release. the district court to order his We conclude that Butler is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in Dist. extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief circumstances. U.S. F.3d is 394, 509, 402 516-17 available (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr the 2003). States States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). used as a substitute for appeal. United United Cir. when v. Mandamus may not be In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 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 Butler is not available by way of mandamus. * Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in * To the extent Butler s filing could be construed as an appeal of the proposed findings and recommendation entered by the magistrate judge in his pending case in the district court, (Continued) 2 forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the district court has not issued a final order. 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1291, 1292 (2012). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.