Chauncey Alexander Hollis filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion has been pending in the district court- without action since February 12, 1999, and Hollis contends that the delay in the district court has been unduly excessive. In its response to the mandamus petition, the Government stated that Hollis has not been prejudiced by the delay because the motion is meritless.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). We decline to exercise our supervisory power to take the extraordinary action of issuing a writ of mandamus in this case. However, the district court is now on notice of Hollis’ claim that the delay in acting on the motion has been excessive, and we trust that the district court will act on the motion expediently. Therefore, although we *243 grant Hollis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Hollis’ right to file another mandamus petition if the district court does not act on the motion within ninety (90) days after the date of this opinion. We also deny Hollis’ motion for default judgment and 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.