Brian J. Mahon v. Veterans Administration

Second Circuit

Brian J. Mahon v. Veterans Administration

107 F.3d 3, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7060, 1997 WL 32961

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1997

Docket96-6017

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 F.3d 3 (Brian J. Mahon v. Veterans Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brian J. Mahon v. Veterans Administration, 107 F.3d 3, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7060, 1997 WL 32961 (2d Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

107 F.3d 3

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Brian J. MAHON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-6017.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Appearing for Appellant:Brian J. Mahon pro se, East Islip, N.Y.

Appearing for Appellee:Stacy L. Gordon, Ass't U.S. Att'y, EDNY, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Before KEARSE and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and GLEESON, District Judge.*

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendant.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Raggi on the record on December 1, 1995. A Bivens action for an alleged constitutional violation cannot be brought against a federal agency. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). Nor can such an action be brought against an individual employee of the Veterans Administration. See Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2245 (1995). To the extent that plaintiff seeks review of a benefits determination, his suit is barred by 38 U.S.C. § 511. See, e.g., Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1500 (2d Cir.1992). To the extent that plaintiff seeks to assert a tort claim for libel or slander, that claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and in any event is barred by the statute of limitations, see id. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a).

We have considered all of plaintiff's contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

Honorable John Gleeson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

107 F.3d 3

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Brian J. MAHON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-6017.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Appearing for Appellant:Brian J. Mahon pro se, East Islip, N.Y.

Appearing for Appellee:Stacy L. Gordon, Ass't U.S. Att'y, EDNY, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Before KEARSE and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and GLEESON, District Judge.*

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendant.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Raggi on the record on December 1, 1995. A Bivens action for an alleged constitutional violation cannot be brought against a federal agency. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). Nor can such an action be brought against an individual employee of the Veterans Administration. See Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2245 (1995). To the extent that plaintiff seeks review of a benefits determination, his suit is barred by 38 U.S.C. § 511. See, e.g., Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1500 (2d Cir.1992). To the extent that plaintiff seeks to assert a tort claim for libel or slander, that claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and in any event is barred by the statute of limitations, see id. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a).

We have considered all of plaintiff's contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

Honorable John Gleeson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 F.3d 3, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7060, 1997 WL 32961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-j-mahon-v-veterans-administration-ca2-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack