USCA4 Appeal: 25-1984 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1984

In re: TOMMY SEVILLA, individually and as next friends of their minor children, L.S., G.S., and I.B.; MELODIE SEVILLA, individually and as next friends of their minor children, L.S., G.S., and I.B.,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:25-cv-03528-JDA-SVH)

Submitted: October 28, 2025 Decided: November 14, 2025

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Sevilla, Melodie Sevilla, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1984 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Sevilla and Melodie Sevilla petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this

court to order the district court to rule on their pending motions and take other actions in

their civil action. The district court stayed the underlying action pending a decision by this

court on their interlocutory appeal. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved

for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,

(4th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1)

petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has

shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the

writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’”

(quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(2004)); In re Moore,

(4th Cir. 2020). The writ of

mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States,

(1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007).

We have reviewed the mandamus petition and the supplements, and we conclude

that Petitioners fail to show that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petition. We also deny the pending motions. * 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

* We deny the motion to stay as moot. We deny the motion to seal without prejudice to any motion that Petitioners may file in the district court. See 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2).

2