Murray v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 29, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 95-1986


GREGORY T. MURRAY,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________


____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Gregory T. Murray on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and  Julie S.  Schrager,
            _______________                                __________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________


Per Curiam.  Pro se  plaintiff Gregory Murray appeals  a
                 __________   ___ __



district court order that  dismissed this Federal Tort Claims



            action for lack of  jurisdiction based on plaintiff's failure



            to  present  a  timely  administrative claim  for  relief  as



            required by 28 U.S.C.   2401(b).  We have thoroughly reviewed



            the  record and the parties'  briefs on appeal.   We conclude



            that  this  action was  properly  dismissed  for the  reasons



            stated  in the  district  court's order.1   Accordingly,  the
                                                    1



            judgment  of the district  court is summarily  affirmed.  See
                                                           ________   ___



            Local Rule 27.1.    


____________________



               1Plaintiff  contends that  the  district court  failed  to
               1

            recognize that  the Department of Veterans  Affairs (DVA) did

            not  give him copies of the records of the hospitalization in

            issue  until after the filing deadline had passed.  The point

            is  irrelevant, for  it is  clear that  plaintiff's cause  of

            action accrued long before  he requested his medical records.

            Moreover,  nothing  in  the  record  suggests  that  the  DVA

            prevented  the plaintiff  from  obtaining these  records well

            before the filing deadline expired.



                                         -3-