breaches of their duties to maintain safe prison conditions and provide medical care. The MVCC defendants and the federal defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to grant these motions. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Varma failed to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”), because he was not confined in a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that Varma did not state a claim under Bivens because a Bivens cause of action does not lie against a private prison or its employees, and because v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252-55 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 295-97 (4th
holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim holding claim is not cognizable holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 holding that a burrage claim is cognizable under  2255