USCA4 Appeal: 25-1995 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1995

In re: CHARITY MAINVILLE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:25-cv-00417-WO-LPA; 1:25-cv-00302-WO- LPA)

Submitted: September 11, 2025 Decided: September 17, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charity Mainville, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1995 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Charity Mainville petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on several motions in two pending civil cases. She seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. In a supplement to her petition, Mainville also seeks an order vacating various district court orders ruling on motions filed in her cases.

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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Additionally, to the extent that Mainville is attempting to use mandamus to overturn certain district court orders, such relief is not available by way of mandamus. Mainville has not identified any other basis for mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Mainville’s motion to expedite and deny the mandamus petition as supplemented. 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