Case Name: Michael O. DeVAUGHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, Sheriff of Jefferson County Jail, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-14
Citations: 648 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 15-10157
Parties: Michael O. DeVAUGHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, Sheriff of Jefferson County Jail, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
Michael O. DeVAUGHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, Sheriff of Jefferson County Jail, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-10157
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 14, 2016.
Michael O. Devaughn, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Michael B. Billingsley, Don Boyden Long, III, Jenny Lynn Smith, Carolyn Williams Steverson, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, Luther J. Strange, III, Alabama Attorney General’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael DeVaughn, a pro se California state prisoner, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging statutory violations in connection with his arrest by the United States Marshals Service and seeking injunctive relief to remove a federal detainer issued by the U.S. Parole Commission. The government moved to dismiss DeVaughn's Bivens complaint. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommended dismissing without prejudice DeVaughn's Bivens complaint, also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, because, inter alia, DeVaughn was incarcerated in California and the federal detainer was issued in Virginia. The district court agreed and dismissed DeVaughn's complaint without prejudice.
DeVaughn appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint. After review, we affirm the district court's dismissal without prejudice and find no reversible error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which the district court adopted.
AFFIRMED.