Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rivera-Carbana v. Department of Army, 96-1039 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1039 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana on brief pro se., ________________________, Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del, ______________ ______________________, Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.property damage claim on appeal.
USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 96-1039

CARLOS R. RIVERA-CARBANA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana on brief pro se. ________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del ______________ ______________________
Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. ___


____________________

November 7, 1996
____________________




















Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana __________ ___ __

appeals a district court judgment dismissing his Federal Tort

Claims action on the grounds that plaintiff's claims for

personal injuries arising out alleged acts of medical

malpractice were "forever barred" under 28 U.S.C. 2401(b)

and an unrelated claim for property damage to his automobile

had been waived.1 Plaintiff also appeals a subsequent order 1

that denied his motion to reconsider the foregoing judgment.



This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs on appeal. We conclude that plaintiff's

personal injury claims were properly dismissed because they

are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff failed

to present these claims within two years of the date of

their accrual, as required by 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). Plaintiff

has also failed to present a cogent argument addressing his

property damage claim on appeal. Thus, we deem it waived.

See Barrett v. United States, 965 F.2d 1184, 1194 n. 19 (1st ___ _______ _____________

Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal and the

order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration are

affirmed. ________




____________________

1In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b) provides that, "[a] 1
tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred
unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal
agency within two years after such claim accrues ...."

-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer