Gary Warren Hancock, Jr. v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, in her individual capacity

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --