MALCOLM HOWARD, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (FMC-Butner), filed this as a Bivens action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court for a frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim having no arguable basis in law or in fact may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388(1971).
This is one of a number of cases filed by Petitioner against the same Defendants challenging the constitutionality of his confinement. In the current complaint, Plaintiff claims that the statues under which he is committed, 18 U.S.C. § 4243 and 18 U.S.C. § 4247, only allow for state confinement, not federal confinement. He therefore claims that his custody under authority of the Bureau of Prisons violates the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution.
Although couched in different language, Plaintiffs complaint, challenging the constitutionality of his confinement, is the same as that presented and disposed of in previous cases, including Phelps v. Beeler, 5:02-CT-501-H, which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion, 51 Fed.Appx. 474, 2002 WL 31720227(4th Cir), and his petition for a writ of certiorari was subsequently denied by the United States Supreme Court in 123 S.Ct. 1709(2003). Because the substance of Plaintiff's claim, the constitutionality of his confinement, was previously addressed, and because his construction of the aforementioned statutes is misplaced, this action is hereby DISMISSED as frivolous.
SO ORDERED.