PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7540

JOSEPH RANDOLPH MAYS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

T. B. SMITH, Warden, FCI Butner 1; S. MA’AT, Assoc. Warden, FCI Butner 1; JAMIE HOSKINS, Unicor Factory Manager; V. WILLIS, Unit Manager; J. HALFAST, Case Manager; R. MARTIN, Counselor; LT. CHRISTOPHER; K. HENDRY; OFFICER V. WILKINS; OFFICER GLASS; OFFICER SLAYDON; OFFICER LASSITAR; J. CARAWAY, Regional Director; JOHN/JANE DOES,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Party-in-Interest.

------------------------------

RIGHTS BEHIND BARS; RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER,

Amici Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03186-FL)

Argued: May 3, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 20-7540 Doc: 58 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 16

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in which Judge Richardson and Senior Judge Traxler joined.

ARGUED: Devin L. Redding, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Marie Cepeda Mekosh, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lawrence D. Rosenberg, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Sharon C. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Samuel Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C.; Easha Anand, RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-7540 Doc: 58 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 3 of 16

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Joseph Mays, a federal inmate, brings claims under the Fifth Amendment for money

damages against federal prison officials for alleged violations of procedural due process

and equal protection. Mays contends his claims are authorized by Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and its progeny. But

“the Supreme Court [has] all but closed the door on Bivens remedies” that do not fit within

the precise confines of its prior Bivens cases. Dyer v. Smith, 56 F.4th 271, 277 (4th Cir.

2022). Such is the case here. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the

case.

I.

On review, we must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint. Langford v.

Joyner, 62 F.4th 122, 123 (4th Cir. 2023).

In June 2016, Mays was housed at FCI Butner in North Carolina, where he was

employed as a lead mechanic in the optics factory through the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”)

UNICOR employment program. On June 20, Mays submitted a grievance directly to the

BOP’s regional director complaining that his UNICOR manager, Defendant Jamie

Hoskins, engaged in racial discrimination and gave preferential treatment to other inmates

who worked in the optics factory. Five days later, Mays submitted a second grievance to

the regional director complaining that two prison officials retaliated against him by falsely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document