The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-6342•Tyrone Young v. WARDEN D. L. YOUNG, (FCI Beckley)
25-6342Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 29, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6342
TYRONE YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN D. L. YOUNG, (FCI Beckley); WARDEN HECKARD, (FCI Beckley);
B. L. FAIN, (Head of Medical); MS. FOX, (Head of Medical); DOCTOR ROGER
EDWARDS; P/A JOE COOPER; “MAT” DR. HODOVAN, FNP; NURSE LAW;
NURSE TILEY; NURSE THOMPSON; (COUNSULAR) BURDETTE; (UNIT
MANAGER) MS. STAPLES; (CASE MANAGER) MR. HARLESS;
(PSYCHOLOGIST) DR. WHITED; (CASE MANAGER) MR. CRADDOCK;
(ALES) SHIFLET, Pharmacist; (COUNSULAR) MILAM; MS. E. STENNETT,
Unit Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:23-cv-00088)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Young appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion to vacate the court’s prior judgment accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on Young’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Before
addressing the merits of the appeal, we grant Young’s motion to supplement his informal
brief. In addition, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Young’s pending motions to amend and supplement the record, and we affirm the
district court’s order. Young v. Young, No. 5:23-cv-00088 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 14, 2025).
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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.