In re: Brent Christian


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000026217-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000026220-2]; terminating Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000026056-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00204-NCT-1,1:14-cv-00284-NCT-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000133689]. Mailed to: Brent Christian. [17-1181]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1181 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1181 In Re: BRENT RENARD CHRISTIAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cr-00204-NCT-1; 1:14-cv-00284-NCT-LPA) Submitted: July 31, 2017 Decided: August 9, 2017 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brent Renard Christian, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1181 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Brent Renard Christian petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed Christian’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Christian’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?