Bruce Dillard v. Charles Samuels, Jr. , 684 F. App'x 276 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1155
BRUCE ANTHONY DILLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00009-GMG-MJA)
Submitted: March 28, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017
Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Anthony Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States
Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Anthony Dillard appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a
writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the Appellee to produce evidence related
to Dillard’s claim. Dillard filed a complaint against the Appellee under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (2012) (FTCA). The district court adopted
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. We affirmed the district court’s order.
Dillard then filed a petition in the district court for a writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the Appellee to produce evidence related to his dismissed claim. The district
court denied Dillard’s petition. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976);
United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 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).
The relief sought by Dillard is not available by way of mandamus because he had
no clear right to the relief he requested. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
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.
AFFIRMED
3