Norris v. United States Department of Labor

Ninth Circuit

Norris v. United States Department of Labor

25 F. App'x 673

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 2002

DocketNo. 01-35485. D.C. No. CV-00-02179-BJR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 F. App'x 673 (Norris v. United States Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norris v. United States Department of Labor, 25 F. App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

James Edward Norris appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (“FTCA”) alleging that he was wrongfully denied disability benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (“FECA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, see Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037, 121 S.Ct. 627, 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000), we affirm.

[674]*674Noras, a former safety inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration, received notice and a hearing in connection with his claim for FECA disability benefits and has failed to allege facts giving rise to a colorable claim for the denial of procedural due process. Cf. Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1991) (due process is satisfied by notice and an opportunity to respond and the gathering of relevant medical evidence before FECA disability benefits are changed or terminated). To the extent Norris is challenging the denial of his FECA disability benefits, review is precluded by 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). See Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.1985). The district court properly dismissed Norris’s FTCA claim because it is precluded by the discretionary function exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); Baie v. Sec’y of Def., 784 F.2d 1375, 1376-77 (9th Cir.1986).

Because Norris failed to present any legal or factual basis for his motion for reconsideration, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

James Edward Norris appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (“FTCA”) alleging that he was wrongfully denied disability benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (“FECA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, see Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037, 121 S.Ct. 627, 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000), we affirm.

[674]*674Noras, a former safety inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration, received notice and a hearing in connection with his claim for FECA disability benefits and has failed to allege facts giving rise to a colorable claim for the denial of procedural due process. Cf. Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1991) (due process is satisfied by notice and an opportunity to respond and the gathering of relevant medical evidence before FECA disability benefits are changed or terminated). To the extent Norris is challenging the denial of his FECA disability benefits, review is precluded by 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). See Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.1985). The district court properly dismissed Norris’s FTCA claim because it is precluded by the discretionary function exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); Baie v. Sec’y of Def., 784 F.2d 1375, 1376-77 (9th Cir.1986).

Because Norris failed to present any legal or factual basis for his motion for reconsideration, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. App'x 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-united-states-department-of-labor-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack