Opinion ID: 1036315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants Bickell and Bilger

Text: Despite defendants Bickell and Bilger being named in the caption, they are not mentioned in the body of the amended complaint. To the extent that Rivers is asserting a claim against the defendants based on their supervisory role, that claim must be dismissed. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (“A[n individual government] defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.”). Rivers has provided no facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that either defendant Bickell or Bilger had any knowledge of, or power to control, the level of heat in Rivers cell and therefore Rivers has failed to state a claim against the defendants. 1 1 We agree with the District Court that it would have been futile to give Rivers another opportunity to amend his complaint, especially in light of his objections to the Magistrate