-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1038 In re: ANTHONY ANDREWS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:21-ct-03072-D) Submitted: March 18, 2022 Decided: April 11, 2022 Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Andrews, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Andrews filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. In a supplemental filing, Andrews also seeks the recusal of the district court judge. 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 (cleaned up). Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court granted in part Andrews’ Rule 59(e) motion on January 18, 2022. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Andrews’ motion, this claim for relief is moot. “A district judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). However, Andrews’ conclusory assertions of bias, based on his dissatisfaction with the district judge’s adverse rulings, are insufficient to warrant recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal,
640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). Therefore, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant Andrews’ motion to seal in part. The Clerk is instructed to file Andrews’ motion to seal under seal and to maintain all other currently sealed documents under seal. The motion is denied in all other respects. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 22-1038
Filed Date: 4/11/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/13/2022