From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zuniga v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION
Oct 7, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-058 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-058

2013-10-07

JAMES ZUNIGA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; SUZANNE R. HASTINGS; and R&D OFFICER SULLIVAN, Defendants.


ORDER

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Plaintiff seeks to file a "Second Amended Complaint, naming the United States as a defendant." (Doc. No. 11, p. 1). Plaintiff further asserts that the individually named Defendants to the current action are liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because Defendants "individually violated Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights." (Id. at p. 2).

Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend his complaint in order to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, once before. See Doc. No. 7 (vacating Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend). If Plaintiff wishes to bring an action under the FTCA, he should file a new complaint naming the United States as defendant and making specific allegations of negligence based upon acts or omissions of government employees.

Plaintiff's objection concerning the viability of his Bivens claim is without merit. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have deprived him "of due process by taking and depriving Plaintiff o[f] his personal property without due process of law." (Doc. No. 8, p. 4). As twice explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has alternative means to seek redress, which precludes recover under Bivens. See Sharma v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2013 WL 791396, *5 (11th Cir. March 4, 2013); Byrd v. Stewart, 811 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987). The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiff intends to reassert this claim in his proposed Second Amended Complaint. See Doc. No 12-1 p. 4.

____________________

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


Summaries of

Zuniga v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION
Oct 7, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-058 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2013)
Case details for

Zuniga v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ZUNIGA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; SUZANNE R…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION

Date published: Oct 7, 2013

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-058 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2013)

Citing Cases

Hudson v. VA Hosp. Police Dep't

Therefore, the proper defendant for a Bivens action is the individual who committed the act complained of and…