Patrick Harris v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6806 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6806

PATRICK O’NEAL HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; W. PISTORY; TIMOTHY YOUNG; S.

JANSON; L. NEWCOMBE; T. HAMILTON; A. LEMOS; P. DAVIS; R. FERRY; COLEMAN; EVANS; K. BORNODEN; WELLS; NEVILS; D. COOPER; PARKER; A. BRAYES; C. BARSH; PRESTON; MOREAUS; WILLIARD; SCREWS; GUSS; VINDANVER; LOVETT; ELLISON; C. THORPE; B. PEREZ; HOWARD; READY; M. ALLEN; A. BRINSON; K. RIDGEWAY; RANDOLPH; R. VELEZ; K. JULIAN; L. BRABHAM; M. TAYLOR; C. RODRIGUES; DORSEY; S. GIANELLI; K. WOHLGEMUTH; MORGAN; A. ANDERSON; SCHMIDTZ; F. COLLINS; DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (2:23-cv-06282-DCC)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6806 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Patrick O’Neal Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6806 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Patrick O’Neal Harris appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Harris’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680, and other causes of action not relevant to this appeal. We have reviewed the record, as well as the issues raised in Harris’s informal brief, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Harris v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:23-cv-06282- DCC (D.S.C. Sep. 4, 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