In Re: Andrews v. , 82 F. App'x 853 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7182
    In Re: ANTHONY ANDREWS,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.   (CR-01-27)
    Submitted:   October 22, 2003         Decided:     December 19, 2003
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony Andrews, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Andrews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
    that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to
    reconsider its denial of his motion to compel the Government to
    file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 motion.       He alleged that the Government’s
    refusal to file a Rule 35 motion was based on unconstitutional
    motives.   Andrews seeks an order from this court directing the
    district court to make factual findings regarding his motion to
    reconsider the denial of his motion to compel.          He also filed a
    motion seeking a judicial reassignment within the district court
    and a motion seeking to hold the petition for writ of mandamus in
    abeyance pending the disposition of a motion for recusal based on
    bias and impartiality under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 455
    (a) and (b)(1) (2000)
    that he filed in the district court.
    On May 6, 2003, the district court notified Andrews of his
    obligation to respond to the Government’s response to his motion to
    reconsider. Andrews filed the present petition for mandamus relief
    on August 4, 2003, after filing three additional pleadings in the
    district court. Although we grant Andrews in forma pauperis status,
    we deny his petition for mandamus relief because it does not appear
    that the district court’s consideration of his motion to reconsider
    has been unduly delayed.     We also deny Andrews’s motions for
    judicial reassignment and for abeyance.          We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7182

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 853

Judges: Duncan, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 12/19/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023