USCA4 Appeal: 23-6110 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6110

RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CO SINES, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer; CO JOHN DOE NO. 1, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer; CO JOHN DOE NO. 2, Hospital Transport Officer/Federal Corrections Officer; SENIOR OFFICER SPECIALIST JON KOJTAK; JOHN DAVIS; RICHARD RICHARDSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00154-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: September 12, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6110 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint

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

(1971). We affirm.

The district court concluded that a Bivens remedy was unavailable for the

constitutional violations Smith alleged in his complaint. On appeal, Smith argues that the

district court improperly construed his complaint as arising under Bivens. Smith is

mistaken: a complaint seeking damages from a federal actor for an alleged constitutional

violation is a Bivens action. See, e.g., Carlson v. Green,

(1980) (“Bivens

established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to

recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute

conferring such a right.”). Notably, Smith has not challenged the district court’s conclusion

regarding the availability of a Bivens remedy. Accordingly, we conclude that Smith has

forfeited appellate review of that issue. See Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under [4th Cir. R. 34(b)],

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). We also conclude that Smith is

not entitled to reimbursement of the paid portion of the filing fee—for this or his prior

appeal—or a waiver of the remainder of his balance. See

(b). And,

finally, we find no evidence that the district court judge displayed bias in favor of the

Bureau of Prisons.

Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion to recuse the district court judge and affirm

the district court’s judgment. Smith v. Sines, No. 5:20-cv-00154-JPB-JPM (N.D. W. Va.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6110 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/12/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

Jan. 26, 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