In re: Charity Mainville

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --