Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20337/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bhupatrai G. Vachhani
Appellee
Willis Floyd Wiley
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20337

Summary Calendar

WILLIS FLOYD WILEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DR. BHUPATRAI G. VACHHANI, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3712

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have considered the briefs, the record on appeal, and all relevant law, 

and we conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed 

essentially for the reasons articulated in the district court’s opinion of April 28, 

2014. The appellant’s arguments on appeal are without merit.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20337 Document: 00512922876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
No. 14-20337

First, the appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

case for failure to prosecute or for failing to comply with a court order or rule 

of civil procedure. But the district court did no such thing. The district court 

dismissed the case because the appellant did not assert a valid legal claim. The 

appellant’s arguments in this regard appear irrelevant.

Second, the appellant argues that the appellee, a doctor, was a “state 

actor” who may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he worked under 

contract with the Social Security Administration. Section 1983 provides a 

right of action against persons who act “under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.” (Emphasis added). The Social 

Security Administration, however, is a part of the federal government, not the 

state. There is no allegation in this case that the appellee acted under color of 

state law. The district court was correct to dismiss the § 1983 claim. See Case 

v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n action brought pursuant 

to § 1983 cannot lie against federal officers acting under color of federal law.”).

Third, the appellant argues that he asserted a valid legal claim under 

title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the district court erred in 

dismissing it. Title II, however, addresses disability discrimination by state

public entities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); Cellular Phone Taskforce v. F.C.C., 

217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the 

federal government.”). The appellant’s grievances with the federal Social 

Security Administration and the doctor it hired do not fall under the statute. 

The district court was correct to dismiss the title II claim.

Fourth, the appellant challenges the district court’s failure to grant his 

motion for summary judgment. Because the appellant did not assert any valid 

legal claim, he is not entitled to summary judgment.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-20337 Document: 00512922876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2015