NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

(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

. We exercise plenary review

over a district court’s dismissal under

(e)(2)(B). See Allah v. Seiver-

ling,

, 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

(a); Hui v. Castaneda,

(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,

(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,

(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