ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original, emergency, pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the district courts refusal to consider and rule on various post-divorce-decree motions and seeks relief from respondents and her counsels actions in the divorce proceedings.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents,
1
we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. In particular, a writ of mandamus or prohibition may issue only when there exists no adequate and speedy remedy at law, and an appeal is generally an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Here, petitioner can and has appealed from the pertinent orders challenged in this writ petition, see Snyder v. Snyder, Docket Nos. 81887/82756/83029, and he thus may raise his concerns in the consolidated appeals. Accordingly, writ relief is unavailable, and we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
2
FOOTNOTES
1
. Exhibit 4 to petitioners appendix, received in this court on October 13, 2021, consists of a flash drive, purportedly containing audio and video files of a district court hearing. As the flash drive was improperly submitted to the court, see NRAP 30(b)(1) (requiring that copies of necessary transcripts be included in the appendix); see also NRAP 9(c) (governing the preparation of certified copies of transcripts); NRAP 10(b)(2) (governing the filing of exhibits), we decline to review Exhibit 4 and direct the clerk of this court to strike the exhibit from the appendix and return it, unfiled, to petitioner. The clerk shall file the remainder of the appendix.
2
. As real party in interest has not been directed to file an answer to the petition, see NRAP 21(b)(1), we disregard her October 14, 2021, notice of intention not to file and serve a response.