
    David CALHOUN, Appellant, v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE; Kenya Mann; Joel Goldstein, All In Their Individual Official Capacities and as Agents In Fact.
    
      No. 14-1449.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued Nov. 18, 2015.
    Filed: Dec. 3, 2015.
    Richard J. Albanese (Argued), Ari R. Karpf, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, Bensalem, PA, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Elizabeth S. Mattioni (Argued), Charlene K. Fullmer, Margaret L. Hutchinson, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      (Party Terminated Pursuant to Court Order dated 09/05/14).
    
   OPINION

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

David Calhoun appeals two District Court orders: one dismissing his Bivens claims against Assistant United States Attorneys Kenya Mann and Joel Goldstein and the other denying his motion for reconsideration. Calhoun claims the facts he pleaded, viewed in the light most favorable to him, permit the inference that Mann and Goldstein violated his clearly established constitutional rights when they caused him to be unlawfully detained from February 23, 2006, until April 17, 2006.

As was made manifest at oral argument, Calhoun’s case is based on a faulty premise. The public record, which includes opinions of the Pennsylvania state courts, demonstrates that Calhoun was lawfully held on a state detainer until April.4, 2006. See Calhoun v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 2007 WL 8058363, at *1 (Pa.Commw.Ct. Nov. 9, 2007). Accordingly, Calhoun’s claim that Mann recklessly misled and obstructed prison staff in March 2006 by stating that Calhoun was lawfully detained is without foundation. Because Calhoun was lawfully detained at the time of the alleged conversation, Mann accurately reported his detention status.

Having determined that Mann’s statement is not actionable, Calhoun’s remaining allegations are bald assertions of wrongdoing that are not credited at the motion to dismiss stage. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir.2005). And any attempt to amend the complaint to account for the fact that Calhoun was lawfully held at the time Mann made her statement would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002).

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s judgments. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     