ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Dedrick appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Mr. Dedrick complains that the conditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment — specifically that inmates are denied conjugal visits. This denial, Mr. Dedrick argues, results in a high rate of homosexual conduct among the populations, and this, coupled with the fact that the government does not provide condoms to the inmates, exposes himself and other inmates to AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Mr. Dedrick seeks an order allowing conjugal visits, the placement of condoms in prisons, and damages in excess of three trillion dollars. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the petition because § 2241 was not the appropriate remedy for alleged Eighth Amendment violations. The magistrate judge further noted that, if the court instead adopted a broad construction of Mr. Dedrick’s petition and viewed it as a civil rights claim, it would likely be subject to dismissal as well because of a failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Because Mr. Dedrick would then be responsible for the fifing fees associated with a civil rights claim and at the same time force him to accept a dismissal, the magistrate judge recommended that the court leave to him the option of refiling a civil rights claim. On August 8, 2005, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Mr. Dedrick’s petition.

To this court, Mr. Dedrick adds a request that we order Congress to hold hearings about the denial of conjugal visits and its results. Among other issues, Mr. Dedrick has not named the proper defendants for us to entertain such a request — neither Congress nor any of its members is party to this lawsuit. Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Dedrick’s motion for congressional *378 hearings. We have carefully reviewed Mr. Dedrick’s brief, the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, and the record on appeal, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s August 8, 2005 Order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Dedrick’s petition for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus relief.