UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1692
In re: PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 8:05-cr-00001-RWT-1)
Submitted: July 17, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Stephen Walsh, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Stephen Walsh petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling
on his November 1, 2010 petition for relief from judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), November 22, 2010 motion for return of
property, June 21, 2011 motion to subpoena telephone records,
and November 14, 2011 motion to amend the restitution order.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be granted
only in those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is
available. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17
(4th Cir. 2003).
A review of the district court’s docket reveals that
the district court recently directed the Government to file by
July 30, 2013 a response to Walsh’s petition, motion to subpoena
telephone records, and motion to amend the restitution order,
pleadings to which the Government had not filed a response.
Because there has been recent significant action in the district
court, we conclude that Walsh is not entitled to mandamus
relief. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. *
*
We anticipate that the district court will address
promptly Walsh’s pending petition and motions following receipt
of the Government’s response. However, in view of the length of
time Walsh’s petition and motions have been pending in the
district court, our denial of Walsh’s mandamus petition is
without prejudice to the filing of another if further
(Continued)
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
significant delay occurs in the district court after the
expiration of the July 30 response deadline.
3