Gary Hancock, Jr. v. Barbara Rickard, No. 20-6541 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6541 GARY WARREN HANCOCK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, in her individual capacity; OFFICER SAWYERS, in his individual capacity; LIBRARIAN NORRIS; LIEUTENANT SAUNDERS, in his individual capacity; MEDIC WALTERS, in his individual capacity; OFFICER NOWLIN, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JOHN DOE #2, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE #3, in his/her individual capacity; PHARMACIST JOHN DOE, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00024) Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Warren Hancock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Warren Hancock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying relief on Hancock’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Hancock argues that the district court erred by dismissing his Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims. Although the district court dismissed those claims on the merits, we affirm on the ground that the Bivens remedy is unavailable for Eighth Amendment claims alleging unlawful conditions of confinement like those asserted by Hancock. See Tate v. Harmon, 54 F.4th 839, 848 (4th Cir. 2022) (declining to extend Bivens remedy to Eighth Amendment claims alleging unlawful conditions of confinement); United States v. Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 200 n.4 (4th Cir. 2021) (“We may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We deny Hancock’s motion for an order directing a response to his informal brief. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
