In re: Robert Christiansen

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1313

In re: ROBERT CHRISTIANSEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:17-cr-00677-MGL-1; 3:24-cv -07681-MGL)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Christiansen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Christiansen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals
that the district court has dismissed the motion as untimely. Accordingly, because the
district court has recently decided Christiansen’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as
moot.
Christiansen has also filed a supplemental mandamus petition in which he seeks to
challenge the validity of his criminal judgment. 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 (citation modified).
The relief sought by Christiansen is not available by way of mandamus.
Accordingly, we deny the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus.
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.
PETITIONS DENIED