Court Opinion

ID: 9365021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:49.221403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.604978
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6541      Doc: 25         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-6541

        GARY WARREN HANCOCK, JR.,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, in her individual capacity; OFFICER SAWYERS, in his
        individual capacity; LIBRARIAN NORRIS; LIEUTENANT SAUNDERS, in his
        individual capacity; MEDIC WALTERS, in his individual capacity; OFFICER NOWLIN,
        in his individual capacity; OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, in his individual capacity; OFFICER
        JOHN DOE #2, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE #3, in his/her individual capacity;
        PHARMACIST JOHN DOE, in his individual capacity,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00024)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gary Warren Hancock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6541      Doc: 25        Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Gary Warren Hancock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying relief on Hancock’s complaint

        filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

        403 U.S. 388 (1971). Hancock argues that the district court erred by dismissing his Eighth

        Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims. Although the district court dismissed

        those claims on the merits, we affirm on the ground that the Bivens remedy is unavailable

        for Eighth Amendment claims alleging unlawful conditions of confinement like those

        asserted by Hancock. See Tate v. Harmon, 54 F.4th 839, 848 (4th Cir. 2022) (declining to

        extend Bivens remedy to Eighth Amendment claims alleging unlawful conditions of

        confinement); United States v. Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 200 n.4 (4th Cir. 2021) (“We may

        affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We

        deny Hancock’s motion for an order directing a response to his informal brief. 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

                                                    2