Walker v. Filbert , 30 F. App'x 206 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-8011
    RAYMOND ALEXANDER WALKER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM FILBERT, Warden, Maryland Correctional
    Institution - Jessup; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,
    Attorney General for Maryland,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
    2906)
    Submitted:   February 21, 2002             Decided:   March 6, 2002
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Raymond Alexander Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Alexander Walker filed a petition for a writ of man-
    damus in the District of Maryland seeking it to compel the Maryland
    Court of Appeals to consider certain pleadings Walker had filed in
    that state court.     The district court declined Walker’s petition
    for mandamus relief and denied his motion to reconsider.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
    circumstances.     Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    ,
    402 (1976).     Courts are extremely reluctant to grant mandamus re-
    lief.    In re Ford Motor Co., 
    751 F.2d 274
    , 275 (8th Cir. 1984).   In
    seeking mandamus relief, a petitioner carries the heavy burden of
    showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief
    and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable.    In re
    First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
    Walker failed to meet this heavy burden and thus we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court’s orders denying Walker’s mandamus
    petition and motion to reconsider.     See In re: Walker, No. CA-01-
    2906 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2001; Oct. 29, 2001).     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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-8011

Citation Numbers: 30 F. App'x 206

Judges: Diana, Gribbon, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkins

Filed Date: 3/6/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023