Marc A. Manzo v. C. Rivers, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARC A. MANZO, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § No. 3:25-CV-1279-X-BW § C. RIVERS, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff, Marc Manzo, filed an objection. Manzo agrees that he improperly named the Defendants in this action such that the Court must dismiss. But that error is fixable. More critically, the exhaustion requirement under the Federal Tort Claims Act is “a jurisdictional prerequisite for [Federal Tort Claims Act] claims that cannot be waived.”1 So the Court agrees amendment is futile and this case must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of 1 Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 834 (5th Cir. 2019). the United States Magistrate Judge, and by separate judgment, the Civil Complaint, received on May 20, 2025 (Doc. 3), will be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, Plaintiff must pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE