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>). In addition, we conclude that granting Dr.
holding development of medically informed records and ontherecord medicallygrounded findings are required where defendant objected to special condition of compelled medication for which he did not receive notice holding that the plaintiff has not raised a colorable claim that he was denied procedural due process because he did not allege that the available state remedies are constitutionally inadequate holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case holding that administration of antipsychotic drugs was not shocking to the conscience where plaintiff did not allege that he objected to the medication holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction