Bruce Dillard v. Charles Samuels, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00009-GMG-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Bruce Dillard. [17-1155]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE ANTHONY DILLARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Defendant – Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?