In re: Valerie Arroyo

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2494 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2494

In re: VALERIE ARROYO,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:22-cv-00161-FL; 5:22-cv-00166-FL)

Submitted: January 7, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valerie Arroyo, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2494 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Valerie Arroyo petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order the

district court to reverse prior dismissals. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be

reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (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.’” Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542

U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). The writ of

mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389

U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

We have reviewed the mandamus petition and conclude that Petitioner fails to show

that she is 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