In re: Christian Mumme ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1864 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1864
In re: CHRISTIAN FREDERICK MUMME,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. (7:24-cv-00767-BO-RJ)
Submitted: October 8, 2024 Decided: November 5, 2024
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian Frederick Mumme, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1864 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christian Frederick Mumme petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the district court to determine the constitutionality of the Camp Lejeune Justice
Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-168, § 804, 136 Stat. 1759, 1802-04. We conclude that
Mumme is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In
re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Mumme is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant the motion to amend, we deny the 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.
PETITION DENIED
2