Frank Skinner v. US, No. 09-8258 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8258 FRANK SKINNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARLEY LAPIN, Director; RAMIREZ, Regional Director; K. WHITE, Mid-Atlantic Region Director; G. MALDONADO, USP-Atlanta Warden; A. W. YARK; P. A.M. ITTAYEM; R. CRAIG, Counselor; AL HAYNES, USP-Hazelton Warden; V. PURI, Health Care Administrator; D. BOYLES, R.N.; R. MCFADDEN, Western Region Director; T. A. BANKS, FCI Victorville Warden; HEALTH SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR DEVEZA; B. BARTON, M.D.; DAVID ROBERTSON, President/CEO Monogalia General Hospital, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00077-REM-JES) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Skinner, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolph Contreras, John F. Henault, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C.; William E. Coonan, Assistant United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, Illinois; Sharon Lynn Potter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frank adopting the Skinner appeals recommendation the of district the court s magistrate order judge and dismissing his complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2006), with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part. confine our Brief. review 4th See to the Cir. R. issues raised 34(b). in On appeal, we the Skinner s Appellant s brief fails to challenge the district court s dispositive conclusions regarding the lack of personal jurisdiction over some defendants; his failure to state a claim against the institutional defendants; the merits of his Bivens action; his failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and his compliance with state law for his Federal Tort Claims Act claims. has forfeited district counsel. legal before appellate court s order review. and We therefore find Skinner Accordingly, deny Skinner s we motion affirm to the appoint We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.