Virginia Goforth v. Harley Lappin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999650154-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00003 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999787775]. Mailed to: Mr. Goforth 162 Phillipsville Loop Canton, NC 28716 Virginia Arlene Goforth 162 Phillipsville Loop Canton, NC 28716. [15-7360]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7360 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7360 VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MR. GOFORTH, Virginia Arlene Goforth’s Husband and et al, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of Bureau of Prisons; NEWTON KENDING, Bureau of Prisons Medical Director; AMBER NELSON, Warden, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; ALICE LOWE, Associate Warden, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; ALAN BLANKENSHIP, Health Services Unit Health Administrator, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; NEAL REHBURG, Doctor of Osteopathy, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; DEBRA HICKEY, 2006 Warden, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; DONNA SAFFOLD, 2006 Associate Warden, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; VICKI DUPREE, Captain, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; J. ENGLEMAN, Unit Manager, A. Range, Alderson Federal Prison Camp; CYNTHIA GODBOLD, 2006 Unit Manager, A Range, Alderson Federal Prison Camp (Guard on Duty); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (and specifically herein), Defendants - Appellees, and THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Individually, and in their official capacity as Custodians/Directors of Custodians; THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General or Predecessor; Appeal: 15-7360 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2016 UNITED STATES INSPECTOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Pg: 2 of 4 GENERAL; THE UNITED STATES Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00003) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 4, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virginia Arlene Goforth, Horn, Assistant United Virginia, for Appellees. Appellant Pro Se. States Attorney, Stephen Michael Charleston, West Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-7360 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Virginia Arlene Goforth appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s grant rejection leave to of Goforth’s proceed in FTCA forma claim. pauperis Accordingly, and affirm we the disposition of the FTCA claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Goforth v. Lappin, No. 1:09-cv-00003 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Turning to Goforth’s Bivens claims, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). See Goforth’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition of her Bivens claims — namely, individual demonstrate needs. court’s that defendants deliberate Thus, order. Goforth she and, in failed any event, indifference has forfeited Accordingly, we denial of Goforth’s Bivens claims. 3 to to properly that her the failed serious appellate affirm she serve review district the to medical of the court’s Appeal: 15-7360 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 4 of 4 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 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?