Whether the sitting panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's entry of summary judgment on petitioner's pro se deliberate indifference claim under Bivens

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 1. WHETHER THE SITTING PANEL FOR..THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PER.:CURIAM OPINION, AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S . ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ON PETITIONER" S.PRO.SE DELIBERATE... :.. INDIFFERENCE CLAIM: UNDER..BIVENS ,; BRINGS ABOUT. INTRA-CIRCUIT CONFLICT, WHERE, THE PANEL FAILED--TO. PROPERLY ANALYZE oo PETITIONER'S DELAY OR DENIAL OF ADEQUATE TREATMENT CLAIM ACCORDING TO BINDING fHIRD.CIRCUIT PRECEDENTS ,. AFTER THE ; ORIGINAL COURT FOUND PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT,: SUFFICIENTLY.’ : . . ALLEGED AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLIAM AGAINST RESPONDENT? 2. WHETHER.: THE .BOP'S PRACTICE..OF -REQUIRING. FEDERAL: PRISONER"'S. ~-.. TO PURCHASE. MEDICATION AT THE COMMISSARY, IS INCOMPATIBLE a WITH THE CONCEPT OF ADQUATE MEDICAL CARE, THEREBY, RUNNING AFOUL OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN ESTELLE V. GAMBLE, 429 US 97 (1976)? 3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: IMPROPERLY: OVERLOOKED:. PETITIONER! $i:‘SWRON. TESTIMONY, :' THUS, APPLYING THE WRONG LAW TOC PETITEONER'S FACTS? un, 5° . oo 4. WHETHER A BIVENS COMPLAINT FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WHICH WAS: ORIGINALLY FOUND TO ALLEGE SUFFICENT FACTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO LATER BE.-DEEMED FRIVOLOUS BY A SUCCESSOR JUDGE, AFTER ::. DISCOVERY HAD CONCLUDED? i.