
    Dr. Chandan S. VORA, Appellant v. Dr. Tejas PATEL, Psychiatric Ward Director; A. Oandasan, Psychiatric Ward Director; Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital, with their staff.
    No. 11-2710.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Aug. 4, 2011.
    Opinion filed Aug. 25, 2011.
    Chandan S. Vora, Johnstown, PA, pro se.
    Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals pro se from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a civil rights complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In the complaint, Dr. Vora alleged that she received improper medical treatment, including the forced administration of anti-psychotic medication, while confined in the psychiatric ward at Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital. She named as defendants the Hospital and two of the doctors who treated her. The District Court granted Dr. Vora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but concluded that her “allegations ... seek to attack matters over which this court lacks jurisdiction and otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dr. Vora appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon de novo review of the record and careful consideration of Dr. Vora’s notice of appeal and other submissions, we conclude that there is no substantial question presented on appeal and that summary action is warranted. See LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Even if the defendants were state actors, none of their alleged conduct shocks the conscience. See Benn v. Universal Health System, Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 175 (3d Cir.2004) (holding that administration of anti-psychotic drugs was not shocking to the conscience where plaintiff did not allege that he objected to the medication). In addition, we conclude that granting Dr. Vora leave to amend the complaint in the instant case would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002).

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.  