Gregory C. Krug appeals the dismissal of his suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that his suit was not barred by the exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) for any claim arising from the detention of goods by a law enforcement officer because he alleges that a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employee stole his property.

We review the district court’s dismissal of an action based on exceptions to the FTCA de novo, accepting all of the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2001). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008).

Possession of his property by a BOP employee, even if unauthorized, tortious, or wrongful, constitutes a detention within the meaning of § 2680(c) and is remotely related to a BOP employee’s duties in inspecting and inventorying prisoner property. See Chapa v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 339 F.3d 388, 391 (5th Cir. 2003); Capozzoli v. Tracey, 663 F.2d 654, 658 (5th Cir. 1981). Krug has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing his suit for lack of jurisdiction as barred by § 2680(c).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.