Court Opinion

ID: 9841071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 21:00:39.113615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:45.209944
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ___________

                                  No. 23-1467
                                  ___________

                        JONATHAN ANDRE GILMORE,
                                          Appellant

                                        v.

DR. STEPHANY MCGANN, MD/CD; DR. KYLE KNOWLES, MD; DR. C. MORLEY,
                              PHD
               ____________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the District of New Jersey
                            (D.C. No. 1:21-cv-19018)
                   District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
                  ____________________________________

     Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
       Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                               on August 24, 2023

          Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

                      (Opinion filed: September 20, 2023)
                   ____________________________________
                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Jonathan Andre Gilmore, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pau-

peris, filed a Bivens1 action alleging Defendant Stephany McGann, a doctor and lieuten-

ant commander in the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), violated his Eighth Amendment

right to adequate medical care. He also alleged that the Defendants violated his First

Amendment rights by altering his medical records in hope of avoiding liability and in re-

taliation for the administrative grievances that he leveled against them. The Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the District Court. This appeal followed.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

over a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Allah v. Seiver-

ling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may take summary action when no substan-

tial issue is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

    The District Court correctly concluded that McGann, as a PHS employee, is not per-

sonally subject to Bivens actions challenging conduct “arising out of the performance of

medical or related functions within the scope of [her] employment.” See 42 U.S.C. §

233(a); Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799, 802 (2010) (“Based on the plain language of §

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
  Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
                                             2
233(a), we conclude that PHS officers and employees are not personally subject to

Bivens actions for harms arising out of such conduct.”).

   Similarly, the District Court rightly dismissed Gilmore’s First Amendment retaliation

claim, because Bivens does not encompass such a cause of action. See Egbert v. Boule,

142 S.Ct. 1793, 1807 (2022).

   Because Gilmore’s appeal does not present a substantial question, we will affirm the

District Court’s dismissal of his complaint. Likewise, we deny Gilmore’s motion for ap-

pointment of counsel and oral argument.

                                            3