Hamilton v. USA, 2:17-cv-22-DPM-JTK. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20171213a40
Visitors: 24
Filed: Dec. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, N o 39 , and overrules Hamilton's objections, N o 48. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to what his objection says, Hamilton did request money damages in his complaint. N o 2 at 12. Further, the statute required Hamilton to present his claim to the Bureau — not his Senator — and have it finally denied in writing before bringing suit. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); N o 48 at 7
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, N o 39 , and overrules Hamilton's objections, N o 48. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to what his objection says, Hamilton did request money damages in his complaint. N o 2 at 12. Further, the statute required Hamilton to present his claim to the Bureau — not his Senator — and have it finally denied in writing before bringing suit. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); N o 48 at 7-..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
1. On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, No 39, and overrules Hamilton's objections, No 48. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to what his objection says, Hamilton did request money damages in his complaint. No 2 at 12. Further, the statute required Hamilton to present his claim to the Bureau — not his Senator — and have it finally denied in writing before bringing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); No 48 at 7-8. It doesn't appear that happened here. Finally, Hamilton's 1 November 2017 submission doesn't save his FTCA claim. No 48 at 9-10. Hamilton had to present his claim before filing this lawsuit in February, not after. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
2. The United States' motion to dismiss, No 32, is granted. Hamilton's FTCA claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
