Virginia Arlene GOFORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Mr. Goforth, Virginia Arlene Goforths 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; United States Inspector General; The United States Department of Justice, Defendants

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of Goforth’s FTCA claim. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm 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. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Goforth’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition of her Bivens claims — namely, that she failed to properly serve the individual defendants and, in any event, that she failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Thus, Goforth has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Goforth’s Bivens claims.

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.