Skinner v. United States

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8258 FRANK SKINNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARLEY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frank Skinner appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his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. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s Brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Skinner’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. We therefore find Skinner has forfeited appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Skinner’s motion to appoint counsel. 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