Brian Burmaster v. American Psychiatric Assoc. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3062
    ___________________________
    Brian Burmaster
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    American Psychiatric Association
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: July 23, 2019
    Filed: July 29, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Brian Burmaster appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his claims under 42
    U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
    1
    The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Hildy
    Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., against the American Psychiatric Association. After de
    novo review, see Montin v. Moore, 
    846 F.3d 289
    , 292 (8th Cir. 2017), we conclude
    that dismissal was proper. Specifically, we agree with the district court that
    Burmaster’s complaint did not state a claim under Section 1983, see Jones v. United
    States, 
    16 F.3d 979
    , 981 (8th Cir. 1994) (Section 1983 is inapplicable when person
    acts under color of federal law); under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
    Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971), see Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko,
    
    534 U.S. 61
    , 71 (2001) (no right of action under Bivens for damages against private
    entities acting under color of federal law); or under RICO, see Crest Constr. II, Inc.
    v. Doe, 
    660 F.3d 346
    , 355–58 (8th Cir. 2011) (RICO claim was properly dismissed
    where plaintiffs failed to plead RICO elements of enterprise, pattern of racketeering
    activity, and at least two predicate acts committed by defendant).
    We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-