West v. US Marshall
West v. US Marshall
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30350 Conference Calendar
ALAN ROY WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. MARSHAL; TODD CLEMENTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-1423 - - - - - - - - - - October 26, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alan Roy West, federal prisoner # 10562-035, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil-rights
lawsuit alleging denial of medical treatment as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Orders dismissing complaints as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See
Berry v. Brady,
192 F.3d 504, 507(5th Cir. 1999). Complaints
dismissed for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are subject to de novo review. See Harris v.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 01-30350 -2-
Hegmann,
198 F.3d 153, 156(5th Cir. 1999). Under either
standard, West’s claims lack merit.
Although West filed his instant complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly construed such
complaint as alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388(1971). A
federal agency is not subject to suit under Bivens. See F.D.I.C.
v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 486(1994). West’s instant claims
against the U.S. Marshal’s Service were therefore properly
dismissed.
The remaining defendants are a federal magistrate judge and
a U.S. District Attorney. Both are absolutely immune from suit
because their challenged actions were performed within the bounds
of their official duties. See Boyd v. Biggers,
31 F.3d 279, 284-
85 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment
is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished