Shawn Phillips v. Joe Driver, No. 10-6115 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6115 SHAWN A. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOE D. DRIVER, Warden; L. ODDO, Captain; MR.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 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. ยงยง 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2006). error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Phillips v. Driver, No. 1:07-cv-00102-IMK-JSK-1 district court. (N.D.W. Va. appointment Dec. of 16, 2009). counsel, reconsideration. We We motion deny his deny to Phillips compel petition for seeking documents from the district court. * oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials and writ motion for motion for of mandamus We dispense with legal before contentions the court are 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

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.