The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2096
In re: NATALIE A. TAO, f/k/a Natalie Morgan-Tao, f/k/a Natalie Morgan Tao, formerly
doing business as Quality Care Daycare at BUP LLP-SSM, a/k/a Quality Care DayCare at
BUP, LLP,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. (25-14490)
Submitted: January 30, 2026 Decided: February 18, 2026
Before KING, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Natalie A. Tao, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Natalie A. Tao petitions for a writ of mandamus in relation to her voluntary Chapter
13 petition in bankruptcy, seeking an order directing the bankruptcy court to disqualify the
Trustee; require the Trustee to credit certain plan payments and preserve and reconstruct
certain documents; provide ADA-compliant access to all proceedings; recover certain
assets; prohibit certain parties from participating in proceedings; and abstain from
retaliating against her. Tao further requests that this court stay any collection or
enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of this petition.
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 and indisputable right to” the relief she seeks and “has no other
adequate means . . . to attain the desired relief.” In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir.
2020) (citation modified). Our review of the bankruptcy court’s docket leads us to
conclude that the dismissal of Tao’s voluntary Chapter 13 petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 521(i)(1) renders moot much of the relief Tao seeks. The remaining relief Tao seeks is
not available by way of mandamus because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal, see In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and Tao has
not demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and deny as moot Tao’s
motion for a stay. 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