UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
2