Gary Hancock, Jr. v. Barbara Rickard

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 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