## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3123

___________ Michael C. Antonelli, *
* Appellant, *
* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mark Tipton, Unit Manager, FCI- * Eastern District of Arkansas. Forrest City; Smith, Lt., FCI - Forrest * City; Patterson, Drug Treatment * [UNPUBLISHED] Specialist, FCI - Forrest City; Alison * Marie Rusk-Luekefeld, Residential * Drug Abuse Program Coordinator, * FCI - Forrest City; Martha Depoorter, * Counselor, FCI - Forrest City; Peevee, * Education Secretary, FCI - Forrest * City; Pritkin, Commissary Officer, * FCI - Forrest City; J Carroll, Assistant * Health Services Administrator, * FCI - Forrest City; Rick Marquez, * Captain, FCI - Forrest City; Ward, * Lt., FCI - Forrest City; G Shaver, * Drug Treatment Specialist, FCI - * Forrest City; Gaucher, Property * Officer, FCI - Forrest City; Wanzer, * Lt., FCI - Forrest City; Garcia; USA; * P McBride, Trust Fund Supervisor, * FCI - Forrest City, *
* Appellees. *1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Ma gistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- ___________ Submitted: December 1, 2009 Filed: December 16, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Former federal inmate Michael An tonelli brought suit for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against officials at the Federal Correctional Complex in Arkansas. He alle ged that defendants re taliated against him for filing grievances, and violated his Fi rst and Eighth Amendment rights, as well as his right to due process. The district court 1 dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Ant onelli appeals. After careful de novo review,

see Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we affirm.

First, we conclude that Antonelli faile d to state a retaliation claim because he either failed to allege which defendants were involved inor affected by his grievances,

see Atkinson v. Bohn , 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim where inmate failed to allege sufficient facts from which retaliatory animus could be inferred); see also Gordon v. Hansen , 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (§ 1983 and Bivens suits involve same analysis), or failed to allege particular actions by specific defe ndants that would have-3- chilled a person of ordinary firmness from filing grievances, see Lewis v. Jacks , 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007).

We also conclude that di smissal was proper as to eachof the remaining Bivens claims because Antonelli either did not allege facts rising to the level of a constitutional violation, or did not allege facts indicating any defendant’s personal involvement in the claimed violation. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 483-84 (1995) (confinement in segregation does not implicate Due Process Clause unless confinement imposes atypical and signi ficant hardship on inmate in relation to ordinary prison life); Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (requirements for Eighth Amendment claim against prison official); Bandy-Bey v. Crist , 578 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (requirements for establishing violation of substantive due process ri ghts); Marshall v. Knight , 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006) (for prisoner claiming denial of access to courts, notice pleading requires specific allegations as to prejudice suffered becauseof defendants’ a lleged conduct); Martin v. Sargent , 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (w here plaintiff did not allege defendant was personally involved in or ha d direct responsibility for incidents that injured him, his claims against that defendant were not cognizable under § 1983).

Finally, we conclude that Antonelli faile d to state a claim under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) (FTCA’s waiver of s overeign immunity shall not apply to any claim based on federal agent’s exercise or performance of discretionary function, or to any claim arising in respect of dete ntion of any goods, merchandise, or other property by law enforcement officer); § 1346(b)(2) (requiring person convicted of felony who is incarcerated while serving sentence to show physical injury before bringing civil action against United States for mental or emotional injury).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________