Raymond Arthur Gentile v. U.s. Federal Marshal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ARTHUR GENTILE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. FEDERAL MARSHAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-16590
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00943-DAD-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Raymond Arthur Gentile appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gentile’s action because Gentile failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim against a
proper defendant. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 472 (1994) (federal agencies
are not proper defendants in a Bivens action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to file
an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that district court may deny leave to amend
where amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --