Matthew Alward v. Health Services Administrator

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6165

MATTHEW ALWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; WARDEN, FCI Beckley; DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:25-cv-00377)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Alward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Alward appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) Alward’s second amended complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Alward’s informal brief primarily raises new claims that the district court’s decision resulted in a retaliatory transfer and mistreatment by prison officials and states only generally that the court ignored facts and evidence. Thus, Alward does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition of his claims. Accordingly, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Regardless, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s acceptance of the magistrate judge’s findings. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Alward v. Health Servs. Adm’r, No. 5:25-cv-00377 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 15, 2026). 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