In re: Morris Bridgers, No. 20-1090 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1090 In re: MORRIS EDWARD BRIDGERS, a/k/a Muzak, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:13-cr-00183-BO-3) Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris Edward Bridgers, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris Edward Bridgers petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to enforce specific performance of his plea agreement. We conclude that Bridgers is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 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 right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Bridgers is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.