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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 403 U.S. 388 (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, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (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, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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. 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