
    Michael Anthony DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harley G. Lappin, Director, BOP; Hector A Ledezma, Warden; Rogalsky, Unit Manager; Mendez, Unit Manager; C Crabtree, Unit Counselor; Carrie Christly, Assistant Inmate Systems Manager; Maldonado, South Central Regional Director BOP; Willis, Warden; Karen L. Collins, USPO; Terri L. Lassiter, USPO; Michael J. Worley, AUSA; Nancy Larson, AUSA; J. Beach, Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-6072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 14, 2011.
    Michael A. Davis, El Reno, OK, pro se.
    Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Michael A. Davis, a federal inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his claims against Defendant Couch and his Privacy Act claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and his FTCA claims without prejudice as premature. I R. 37-42; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, Davis v. United States, No. CIV-10-1136-HE, 2011 WL 704894 (W.D.Okla. Jan.4, 2011), after determining that Mr. Davis was not raising Bivens claims. We deny in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Davis was convicted in the Northern District of Texas of conspiracy to possess and distribute crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine, aiding and abetting, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Moffitt, 233 Fed.Appx.409 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1002, 128 S.Ct. 516, 169 L.Ed.2d 360 (2007). For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we agree that Mr. Davis’s claims cannot proceed.

To proceed on appeal IFP, Mr. Davis must present a reasoned, non-frivolous argument. This we find lacking. Accordingly,

We DENY IFP status, remind Mr. Davis of his obligation to pay the filing fee, and DISMISS the appeal. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     