UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6919
MICHAEL TROY FOREMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Beckley;
JOYCE K. CONLEY, Warden; ASHOK BHALODI, M.D.;
DOCTOR MCLAIN; S. ROSE, Clinical Director; J.
KOBY; S. A. TAYLOR, PA-C; M. OWENS, Clinical
Nurse; N. RETTBERG, D. O. Staff Physician; J.
W. THOMPSON; A. BLANKENSHIP; K. KAISER;
JESSICA GRIFFITH, Contract Medical Assistant;
CAPTAIN HARE; J. KIFKLAND, RN/AHSA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (5:04-cv-01260)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Troy Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Sandra
Henson Kinney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
West Virginia; Scott E. Johnson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston,
West Virginia; Monica Lynn Dillon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard Allen Hayhurst,
Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael Troy Foreman appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and
the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680
(2000). Foreman also argues that his claims should be construed as
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). However, Foreman’s
claims were not filed under § 1983, and there are no exceptional
circumstances to merit the consideration of this new argument on
appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993). With respect to Foreman’s Bivens and FTCA claims, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Foreman v.
Fed. Corr. Inst., No. 5:04-cv-01260 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 30, 2006).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -