`
`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`Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`