In re: Michael Gorbey

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 9, 2022
Docket22-1097
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: Michael Gorbey (In re: Michael Gorbey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Michael Gorbey, (4th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1097

In re: MICHAEL GORBEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:21-cr-00214-1)

Submitted: March 3, 2022 Decided: March 9, 2022

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Michael Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order the district

court to take certain actions in his criminal case. “[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 and citations 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. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). 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); cf. United States v. Sueiro,

946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that in a criminal case, “this Court generally does

not have appellate jurisdiction until after the imposition of a sentence”).

We have reviewed Gorbey’s petition and amended petitions, and we conclude that

he fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition

and amended petitions for a writ of mandamus. * 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

* To the extent Gorbey seeks recusal of prior judges, we deny his request as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Will v. United States
389 U.S. 90 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Lockheed Martin Corp.
503 F.3d 351 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
In re: Murphy-Brown, LLC
907 F.3d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Christopher Sueiro
946 F.3d 637 (Fourth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Michael Gorbey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-gorbey-ca4-2022.