¶1 Nathaniel H. Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order from this court directing the Supreme Court of South Carolina to waive a filing fee.
¶2 Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief *715 sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Finally, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
¶3 Jones is not entitled to the relief sought because we do not have jurisdiction to review the state court’s action. Accordingly, although we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.
¶4 PETITION DENIED.