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City; Patterson, Drug Treatment * [UNPUBLISHED]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 Magistrate 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 Antonelli 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 alleged that defendants retaliated against him

for filing grievances, and violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights, as well as

his right to due process. The district court1

 dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A for failure to state a claim. Antonelli 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 failed to state a retaliation claim because he

either failed to allege which defendants were involved in or 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 defendants 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 dismissal was proper as to each of 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 significant 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 rights); 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 because of defendants’ alleged conduct); Martin

v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (where plaintiff did not allege

defendant was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for incidents that

injured him, his claims against that defendant were not cognizable under § 1983).

Finally, we conclude that Antonelli failed to state a claim under the FTCA. See

28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) (FTCA’s waiver of sovereign 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 detention 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.

______________________________