The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-6115•Shawn A. Phillips v. JOE D. DRIVER, Warden
10-6115Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 25, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6115
SHAWN A. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOE D. DRIVER, Warden; L. ODDO, Captain; MR. ANTONELLIE,
SIS Lieutenant; D. GREENWALT, Food Service Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00102-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn A. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shawn A. Phillips appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Phillips v. Driver, No. 1:07-cv-00102-IMK-JSK-1
(N.D.W. Va. Dec. 16, 2009). We deny Phillips’ motion for
appointment of counsel, motion to compel and motion for
reconsideration. We deny his petition for writ of mandamus
seeking documents from the district court.* We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought, In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988), and Phillips has not
made such a showing.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.