failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Varma did not file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report, we review the District Court’s decision for plain error. See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 196 (3d Cir.2007). We will address Varma’s claims in the order presented in his amended complaint. As noted above, Varma’s first two claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although not addressed by the Magistrate Judge, Varma f ma fails to state a Bivens claim against individual employees of MVCC. The courts of appeals are currently divided as to whether a Bivens claim is cognizable against employees of a private prison. Compare Pollard v. The Geo Group, Inc., 607 F.3d 583, 588 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>), amended, 629 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.2010), with
holding claim is cognizable holding that a burrage claim is cognizable under  2255 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 insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim