### The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United State District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of 2 

### Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ___________ No. 95-2554

___________ Calvin J. Weber, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Robert L. Buhrkuhl, Civ. Project * Eastern District of Missouri. Mgr.; Diane Ottolini, Civ. * Personnel Mgr.; Nicholas J. * [UNPUBLISHED] Ciccarello, U.S. Army Col., * Named Federal Officials in their * individual capacities, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 1995 Filed: December 21, 1995

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Calvin J. Weber appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 1 Bivens action against federal officials. We affirm.

2
During the Gulf War, Weber, a civilian Army engineer, informe d various news media organizations and legislators that the Army was coverin g up reliability problems and not providing soldie rs with the best equipment available. In June 1993, the Army terminated

### -2-

Weber
. Believing that his termination was in retaliation for hi s whistleblowing activities, Weber brought this Bivens action. Weber claime d his free speech and due process rights were violated when defendant federa l officials allegedly made false statements and perjured themselves during his administrative appeals of the revocation of his security clearance and his termination.
The district court granted defendant s' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that Weber's First Amendment allegations were conclusory, and that Weber's due process rights were not violated when his clearance was revoked because he had no right to a security clearance.

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim

. Alexander v. Peffer , 993 F.2d 1348, 1349 (8th Cir. 1993). Even assuming that Weber's allegations identify a constitutional violation, the Civi l Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) bar such a claim. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 12 11-16, 1221, 2302; Bush v. Lucas , 462 U.S. 367, 385-86, 390 (1983) (CSRA pr events the creation of new judicial remedies for federal employees whose First Amendment rights are violated by superiors); see also Gergick v. Austin , 997 F.2d 1237, 123 9 (8th Cir. 1993) (CSRA exclusive remedy for government employees with claim s under WPA), cert. den ied , 114 S. Ct. 1536 (1994). We disagree with Weber that d efendants' actions fall outside the scope of CSRA "prohibite d personnel practices." Cf. Bush , 462 U.S. at 385 n.28 (noting conduct such
as wiretapping, warrantless searches, or uncompensated takings would not be "personnel actions" within statutory scheme); Moon v. Philips , 854 F.2d 147, 15 0 (7th Cir. 1988) (supervisor ordering plaintiff to file fals e report not conduct within exception).
The district court also correctly determined that Weber's due p rocess claim bas ed on revocation of his security clearance did not amount to a constitutional violation. See Department of Navy v.

### -3-

Egan , 48 4 U.S. 518, 528-29 (1988) (no right to security clearance ; therefore no right to Merit Systems Protection Board review of grant o r denial of clearance on due process grounds); Dorfmont v. Brown , 913 F.2d 1399, 1404 (9th Cir. 1990) (due process challenge to revocation of securit y clearance not colorab le constitutional claim), cert. denied , 499 U.S. 905 (1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT