USCA11 Case: 22-13281 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13281
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
TAVARES LENARD FARRINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OFFICER DIAH,
LIEUTENANT M. BROWN,
OFFICER CHAMBERS,
OFFICER WISE,
ASSISTANT WARDEN MERENO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13281 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13281
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02697-VMC
____________________
Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tavares Lenard Farrington, a federal prisoner proceeding
pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his civil
rights complaint brought against federal prison officials under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which he alleged an excessive use of force in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, and retaliation for filing
an earlier lawsuit. 1 After review, 2 we affirm.
We conclude Farrington’s appeal fails for two reasons. First,
Farrington failed to object or otherwise respond to the magistrate
1 Farrington appeals only the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment excessive use
of force claim. Accordingly, he has abandoned any argument as to his retalia-
tion claim. See United States v. Campbell,
26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc),
cert. denied,
143 S. Ct. 95 (2022); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d
678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating an appellant must clearly and specifically iden-
tify any issue he wants the appellate court to address in his brief ).
2 A district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915A(b)(1) is reviewed de novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as
true. Boxer X v. Harris,
437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). While pro se plead-
ings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than those
drafted by attorneys, they still must suggest some factual basis for a claim.
Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n,
787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 22-13281 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-13281 Opinion of the Court 3
judge’s recommendation that the excessive force claim in his com-
plaint be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court’s suggestion, in
Egbert v. Boule,
142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022), that Bivens did not extend to
include excessive force claims arising under the Eighth Amend-
ment. The district court adopted this finding as the grounds for its
dismissal, and Farrington does not argue on appeal that this was
plain error or a manifest injustice, and thus he cannot challenge the
issue on appeal. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,
996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993) (stating when a magistrate
judge provides notice and a party fails to object to the findings in
the report and recommendation and those findings are adopted by
the district court, the party may not challenge them on appeal in
the absence of plain error or manifest injustice).
Even if we deem Farrington to have implicitly preserved his
arguments, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing
Farrington’s claim. The Supreme Court has stated the expansion
of Bivens beyond the three specific contexts in which it has already
been applied 3 is “disfavored.” Ziglar v. Abbasi,
137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857
(2017). A case presents a new Bivens context when it is different in
a meaningful way from the previous Bivens cases decided by the
Supreme Court. Egbert, 142 S. Ct. at 1803. While the Supreme
3 While Bivens involved a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme
Court has allowed a Bivens action alleging gender discrimination under the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bivens,
403 U.S. at 392; Davis v.
Passman,
442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979). It has also recognized a Bivens action for
deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs under the Eighth
Amendment. Carlson v. Green,
446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980).
USCA11 Case: 22-13281 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13281
Court previously recognized a Bivens action under the Eighth
Amendment in the context of a prison official’s deliberate indiffer-
ence to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, an excessive force claim
under the Eighth Amendment raises a new context, as the alleged
official actions in each case differ significantly. See Ziglar,
137 S. Ct.
at 1859-60 (stating a case may differ in a meaningful way where
there are differences in the constitutional right at issue; the gener-
ality or specificity of the official action; the statutory or other legal
mandate under which the officer was operating; the risk of disrup-
tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other
branches; or the presence of potential special factors that the previ-
ous Bivens cases did not consider).
Farrington’s argument the remedies provided by the BOP’s
grievance process and the FTCA are insufficient is also meritless, as
an alternative process need not provide a plaintiff complete relief
in order to weigh against the extension of Bivens. See Alvarez v. U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enf’t,
818 F.3d 1194, 1206 (11th Cir. 2016)
(stating if a court finds an existing process already provides the
plaintiff with sufficient protection, it does not recognize a Bivens
remedy, and the alternative processes need not provide the plaintiff
complete relief). Congress specifically considered the issue of pris-
oner abuse in the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, ulti-
mately providing an alternative remedy pathway that did not pro-
vide for standalone damages against federal employees. See Ziglar,
137 S. Ct. at 1865 (stating legislative action suggesting Congress
does not want a damages remedy is itself a factor counselling hesi-
tation). Ultimately, Congress’s prior examination of the issue and
USCA11 Case: 22-13281 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-13281 Opinion of the Court 5
creation of alternative remedy pathways counsels against recogniz-
ing a Bivens action under these allegations. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
