Case Name: Shawn A. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe D. DRIVER, Warden; L. Oddo, Captain; Mr. Antonellie, SIS Lieutenant; D. Greenwalt, Food Service Administrator, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-25
Citations: 440 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 10-6115
Parties: Shawn A. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe D. DRIVER, Warden; L. Oddo, Captain; Mr. Antonellie, SIS Lieutenant; D. Greenwalt, Food Service Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
Shawn A. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe D. DRIVER, Warden; L. Oddo, Captain; Mr. Antonellie, SIS Lieutenant; D. Greenwalt, Food Service Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6115.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2011.
Decided: July 25, 2011.
Shawn A. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (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, 2009 WL 5067525 (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.