* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submi tted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 23, 2010 * Decided December 1, 2010
Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10-1959 KENNETH E. BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HELEN J. MARBERRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terra Haute Division.
No. 2:08-cv-0240-WTL-WGH William T. Lawrence, Judge

. O R D E R
In this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Kenneth Barrett, an inmate of the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana (“FCC”), clai ms that prison officials and medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by refusing to surgically remove a bullet that, he says, causes dermatitis (rashes). Barrett also claims that a prison dentist was NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10-1959 Page 2 deliberately indifferent to his dental needs wh en extracting a tooth. The district court granted summary judgment fo r all defendants, and Barrett appeals. We affirm. Barrett has a bullet lodged in his hip, the re sult of a shot officers fired during his arrest in 1999. He shot back, killing an officer, which lead to his death sentence. When Barrett arrived at the FCC, medical staff x- rayed his hip and examined bullet fragments benignly resting over his right femur. Dr. We bster, clinical director at the FCC, and two outside orthopedic surgeons each opined that there was no irritationat the healed wound; that the fragments were not infectious, caused no pain, restricted no movement; and that there was no clinical reason for surgery. Beyond the fragments, Barrett has chronic dermatitis, mainly on his shins and feet, whic h he says was caused by an allergy to the fragments. Barrett’s dermatit is was treated numerous times at the FCC’s general chronic care clinic, and medical staff prescribed vari ous anti-inflammatory, steroid skin creams. On one occasion Barrett developed a bacterial skin infection unrelat ed to the dermatitis, which medical staff successfully treated with a battery of antibiotics. On another occasion, Barrett developed on his arms a rash re lated to the dermatitis, and me dical staff referred him to the FCC’s dermatology program for monitoring. He also has prostatitis and a benign hydrocoele in his right testicle, which me dical staff and two outside urologists have evaluated, treated, and medicated. Barrett also complained of stomach dyspepsia, so medical staff evaluated him an d prescribed Prilosec. Barrett filed this prisoner’s civil rights ac tion, claiming that the defendants deprived him of a constitutionally required level of me dical care by being de liberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Barrett charged Dr . Thomas Webster, Warden Helen Marberry, and Julie Beighley, a health services administ rator, with deliberate indifference in refusing to remove the bullet fragments. Similarly Barrett alleged thatPublic Health Service Dental Officer (PHS) Roderick Cooper extracted the wrong tooth, in deliberate indifference and retaliation for a grievance Barrett had filed. The district court screened Barrett’s suit, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing all claims except those involving the Eighth Amendment. After further proceedings, the district co urt ultimately granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. First, the court determined that 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) bars Bivens actions against PHS Officers, such as Dr. C ooper, for acts within the scope of their employment and makes the Federal Tort Clai ms Act the exclusive remedy. Second, the district court determined that none of the remaining defendants was liable for deliberate indifference: Dr. Webster could not have b een deliberately indifferent to Barrett’s many medical needs given the abundant medical care Barrett received, and Marberry and Beighley were not personally involved in Ba rrett’s medical treatment and could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior

.No. 10-1959 Page 3 On appeal Barrett first contends that, in granting summary judgment for Dr. Cooper, the court failed to address his claim that Dr . Cooper retaliated against him by pulling the wrong tooth, in violation of the First Am endment. But Barrett misapprehends the significance of the district court’s rulings . The court had dismissed Barrett’s retaliation claim at the screening stage, see § 1915A, effectively terminating the claim. In any event, the court correctly applied § 233(a) and concluded th at, Dr. Cooper, as a PHS officer, could not be personally subject to a Bivens action for harm arising out of his dental work. See Hui v. Castaneda , 130 S. Ct. 1845, 1848 (2010).
Barrett next contends that the district court wrongly granted summary judgment to Dr. Webster, arguing that it fa iled to consider how Dr. Webste r’s professional judgment had been called into question by the recommendatio ns of several dermatologists who said that the bullet fragments should be removed. But medical malp ractice, negligence, and even gross negligence do not rise to th e level of deliberate indifference. Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894-95 (7th Cir. 2007). Barrett’s disagreement with Dr. Webster’s professional judgment (and the two orthopedic surgeons who treate d him) does not suffice to show that Dr. Webster exhibited a total absence of medi cal judgment tantam ount to deliberate indifference. See Norfleet v. Webster , 439 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2006). Nor has Barrett shown that Dr. Webster was deliberatel y indifferent in treating his sundry other afflictions: the dermatitis, prostatitis, benign hydrocoele, and stomach dyspepsia. Barrett is entitled only to adequate medical care, not to the specific treatment he prefers. See Johnson v. Doughty , 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006); Snipes v. De Tella , 95 F.3d 586, 591-92 (7th Cir. 1996).
Barrett next contends that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment for Marberry and Beighley because they knew that the FCC’s dental services were insufficient to meet prisoners’ demands. As the district court concluded, however, these defendants cannot be held liable based simply on their supervisory or administrative roles under a theory of respondeat superior

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Barrett has not set forth evidence showing that the defendants were personally involved in his various treatments.
AFFIRMED.