SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Tunde Adeyi (“Adeyi”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the District Court, following a bench trial, in favor of the defendants-appellees Ken Shubert, Sherry Smith, and William Hever (collectively “defendants”) in his 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). On appeal, Adeyi also moves to correct portions of his trial transcript. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

‘We review the district court’s findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” See Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not “second-guess either the trial court’s credibility assessments or its choice between permissible competing inferences.” Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. See Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363, 367 (2d Cir. 2008).

Mere negligence will not give rise to a Bivens action for a procedural due process violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S.Ct. 677, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Wantanabe Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 315 F.Supp.2d 375, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff'd, 159 Fed.Appx. 235 (2d Cir. 2005). The District Court in this case found that the defendants were, at most, negligent. Upon review, we find no error, much less clear error, in the District Court’s factual findings with respect to each defendant: (1) Schubert was not grossly negligent and did not act with deliberate indifference by failing to check the United States Bureau of Prisons website to see if Adeyi was incarcerated; (2) Hever was not grossly negligent for failing to review Adeyi’s case file before initialing Adeyi’s order to destroy; (3) Smith was not grossly negligent and did not act with deliberate indifference by accidentally ini *42 tialing Adeyi’s “Order to Destroy.” 2 Accordingly, Adeyi has failed to show that the defendants acted in a manner beyond simple negligence that violated his constitutional rights.

Adeyi also makes a number of concluso-ry arguments that: (a) the United States has consented to being sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (“FTCA”); (b) the defendants’ actions violated the New York State Constitution; and (c) that Adeyi was denied legal materials while in custody until the day prior to his trial. 3 Upon review of the record, we find that these arguments either lack any support in the record, or are otherwise contradicted by it.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Adeyi’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the February 11, 2011 judgment of the District Court. Adeyi’s “motion to correct” of April 25, 2012 (Dkt. No. 108) is DENIED as moot.