Corey Deandre Hood v. Bureau of Prisons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6114
COREY DEANDRE HOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS; BELLAMY, Lieutenant; WHITE, R&D Officer;
WRIGHT, Corrections Officer; OWENS, Corrections Officer; MULLINS,
Corrections Officer; SLONE, Corrections Officer; PARSONS, Lieutenant;
LAFAVE, Lieutenant; LIVELY, Lieutenant; HANGER, Associate Warden; LIEU,
Associate Warden; BRECKON, Warden; LAUREN BAILEY, Chief Psychologist;
PARKER, Nurse; CAUDILL, Nurse; BROWN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer;
WHITE, SHU Officer; KAREN PEASE, Nurse; HOLBROOK, Corrections Officer;
SPENCER BOWMAN, Nurse; MITCHELL, Corrections Officer; OFFICER
HAMILTON; OFFICER GILBERT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cv-00402-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Corey DeAndre Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Krista Consiglio Frith, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Corey DeAndre Hood appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’
motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, denying Hood’s motion to amend, and
dismissing Hood’s complaint brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Hood’s informal brief does not challenge the exhaustion findings that
served as the basis for the district court’s disposition of the majority of his claims, he has
forfeited appellate review of his claims resolved on this basis. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under
Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Hood also
does not challenge the district court’s finding that granting him leave to amend his
complaint would be futile and has similarly forfeited appellate review of this ruling.
As for Hood’s remaining Bivens claim, we have reviewed the record and discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hood v. Bureau of
Prisons, No. 7:20-cv-00402 (W.D. Va. filed Jan. 20, 2023 & entered Jan. 23, 2023). 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

-- 3 of 3 --