Filed: Mar. 31, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, ET AL.Defendants, Appellees.Circuit Judges.Charles Simon on brief pro se.March 31, 2004, Per Curiam.for the reasons recited in the district court's thorough decision.) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). 1966), that would call the validity of 28 C.F.R.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-2114
CHARLES SIMON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Lipez and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Charles Simon on brief pro se.
March 31, 2004
Per Curiam. We affirm the order of dismissal substantially
for the reasons recited in the district court's thorough decision.
We add simply that any Eighth Amendment Bivens claim against
defendant Robinson in her personal capacity would fail on
qualified-immunity grounds, inasmuch as no constitutional right to
post-release medical treatment in these circumstances has been
clearly established. See generally DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Dep't of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989) (The affirmative
duty to protect [an inmate] arises ... from the limitation which
[the government] has imposed on his freedom to act on his own
behalf.") (citing Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). Nor
do we find anything in Granade v. United States,
356 F.2d 837 (2d
Cir. 1966), that would call the validity of 28 C.F.R. ยง 301.317
into question.
The motions for oral argument and for expedited review are
denied.
Affirmed.
-2-
