*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. 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”), claims 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 32.1
No. 10-1959 Page 2

deliberately indifferent to his dental needs when extracting a tooth. The district court

granted summary judgment for all defendants, and Barrett appeals. We affirm.

Barrett has a bullet lodged in his hip, the result 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. Webster, clinical director at the FCC, and two

outside orthopedic surgeons each opined that there was no irritation at 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, which he says was caused by an allergy to the

fragments. Barrett’s dermatitis was treated numerous times at the FCC’s general chronic

care clinic, and medical staff prescribed various anti-inflammatory, steroid skin creams. On

one occasion Barrett developed a bacterial skin infection unrelated to the dermatitis, which

medical staff successfully treated with a battery of antibiotics. On another occasion, Barrett

developed on his arms a rash related to the dermatitis, and medical staff referred him to the

FCC’s dermatology program for monitoring. He also has prostatitis and a benign

hydrocoele in his right testicle, which medical staff and two outside urologists have

evaluated, treated, and medicated. Barrett also complained of stomach dyspepsia, so

medical staff evaluated him and prescribed Prilosec. 

Barrett filed this prisoner’s civil rights action, claiming that the defendants deprived

him of a constitutionally required level of medical care by being deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs. Barrett charged Dr. Thomas Webster, Warden Helen Marberry,

and Julie Beighley, a health services administrator, with deliberate indifference in refusing

to remove the bullet fragments. Similarly Barrett alleged that Public 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 court 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. Cooper, for acts within the scope of their

employment and makes the Federal Tort Claims 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 been deliberately indifferent to Barrett’s many

medical needs given the abundant medical care Barrett received, and Marberry and

Beighley were not personally involved in Barrett’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 Amendment. 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 that, 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 failed to consider how Dr. Webster’s professional judgment had

been called into question by the recommendations of several dermatologists who said that

the bullet fragments should be removed. But medical malpractice, negligence, and even

gross negligence do not rise to the 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 treated him) does not suffice to show that Dr.

Webster exhibited a total absence of medical judgment tantamount to deliberate

indifference. See Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2006). Nor has Barrett shown

that Dr. Webster was deliberately 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.