Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond Alexander WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FILBERT, Warden, Maryland Correctional Institution-Jessup; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 01-8011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
    Decided March 6, 2002.
    Raymond Alexander Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Raymond Alexander Walker filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Courts are extremely reluctant to grant mandamus relief. 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.