Robert Blaney v. Beatriz Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 8, 2024
• Docket: 21-1595
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1595

ROBERT BLANEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BEATRIZ GONZALEZ; JENNIFER FERNANDES; JESSICA GNAGEY; BRENDA MARTINEAU,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-02264-JKB)

Submitted: February 23, 2024 Decided: April 8, 2024

Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Lombardo Cusson, Alicia L. Shelton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Blaney, a former applicant for employment with the National Security

Agency (“NSA”), appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint for lack

of jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. On appeal, Blaney raises multiple challenges

to the district court’s conclusion that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.

95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified, as amended, in various sections of Title 5 of the United

States Code) (CSRA), precluded judicial review of most of his claims against Defendants,

employees of the NSA. He further contends that the district court misconstrued his fraud

claim and therefore erred by substituting the United States as a defendant and dismissing

that claim on sovereign immunity grounds.

In reviewing the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “[w]e review the district court’s factual findings on

jurisdiction for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo.” K.I. v. Durham Pub. Schs.

Bd. of Educ., 54 F.4th 779, 788 (4th Cir. 2022). “When a defendant files a motion under

Rule 12(b)(1) challenging subject-matter jurisdiction and relying simply on the allegations

of the complaint, the court must take the jurisdictional facts alleged as true—as in the case

of a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6)—and determine, as a matter of law, whether the court

has jurisdiction.” Blenheim Cap. Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 53 F.4th 286,

292 (4th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-886 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2023).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s orders. Blaney v. Gonzalez, No. 1:19-cv-02264-JKB (D. Md. Sept. 17,

2020; Apr. 12, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED