District court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint arising from denial of his petition for a fiancee visa is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim that his visa was improperly denied as he has failed to state a plausible entitlement to relief; 2) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's Bivens claims as he failed to name any officers in their individual capacities in the first amended complaint and a Bivens claim does not lie against the United States; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint as it would have been futile.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided September 28, 2009
Opinion by Dyk, Circuit Judge
For Appellant: Dean Carnahan
For Appellee: Anton P. Giedt, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney