Don Boyd appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s reports, dismissing his claims against the State of South Carolina and Jerry Oliver for lack of jurisdiction, and granting summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v. Angelica Textile Servs., No. 3:10-cv-00872-JFA, 2011 WL 891307 (D.S.C. Mar. 11) & 2011 WL 4368550 (Sept. 19, 2011). We deny Boyd’s petition for writ of mandamus, as we conclude that Boyd does not have a clear right to the relief sought. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) (mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary situations); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988) (mandamus may be sought where petitioner shows clear right to requested relief, respondent has a clear duty to comply, and there is no other remedy). 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.

AFFIRMED.