United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 12, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41400
Summary Calendar
ERIC C. SAMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL
BRANCH, Galveston Division; J. YUMAN, Correctional Officer;
DANTE ROWELY, Inmate; ROBERT HORTON, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-478
--------------------
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eric C. Sampson, Federal prisoner # 11669-058, has appealed
the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights and
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claims against the United States
of America and its contract health care provider, the University
of Texas Medical Branch (“UTMB”). See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
The United States is immune from suit except as it waives
its sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-41400
-2-
(1994). “This Court has long recognized that suits against the
United States brought under the civil rights statutes are barred
by sovereign immunity.” Affiliated Professional Home Health Care
Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 1999). “Moreover,
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides a cause of action only
against government officers in their individual capacities.” Id.
(parallel citations omitted).
Subject to certain exceptions, the FTCA waives the United
States’s sovereign immunity and permits a person injured by a
Government employee acting within the scope of his employment to
seek tort damages against the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2674 & 1346(b). The FTCA waiver does not encompass federal
constitutional torts and does not extend to negligent acts of
independent contractors such as UTMB. See Linkous v. United
States, 142 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1998); Davis v. United
States, 961 F.2d 53, 57 (Cir. 1991).
The district court concluded that UTMB is immune from suit
under the Eleventh Amendment. See University of Texas Medical
Branch at Galveston v. Mullins, 57 S.W.3d 653, 657 (Tex. App.
2001) (“It is undisputed that UTMB is a governmental entity
entitled to assert sovereign immunity.”). Sampson argues only
that UTMB acted under color of state law and, accordingly, is
subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The question whether a
state agency acted under color of state law is not pertinent to
No. 02-41400
-3-
the question whether that agency is immune from suit as all state
agencies act under color of state law.
AFFIRMED.