Rattler v. United States

373 F. App'x 76
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2010
DocketNo. 10-5009
StatusPublished

This text of 373 F. App'x 76 (Rattler v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rattler v. United States, 373 F. App'x 76 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued January 19, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The appellant’s prior lawsuits against several federal agencies do not satisfy § 2675, which requires presentation of the claim to the federal agency before filing an action in court. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112-13, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

Related

McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 F. App'x 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rattler-v-united-states-cadc-2010.