In re: Anthony Andrews

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --