In re: Robert Craig, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2247 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2247 In re: ROBERT CALVIN CRAIG, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Calvin Craig, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2247 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Craig, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the North Carolina state court’s handling of his negligence action. We grant Craig’s motion to submit an affidavit and additional evidence but conclude that Craig is not entitled to mandamus 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 and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), nor does Craig have a private right to demand a criminal investigation, see Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 655 (5th Cir. 2021) (collecting cases); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). The relief sought by Craig is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition and amended 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