Case Name: In re: Anthony ANDREWS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 82 F. App'x 853
Docket Number: No. 03-7182
Parties: In re: Anthony ANDREWS, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 853–853

Head Matter:
In re: Anthony ANDREWS, Petitioner.
No. 03-7182.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
Anthony Andrews, Petitioner pro se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED