<head>
<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>
<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">
<!--
@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p align=center>
</p><br>
<pre> [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br> United States Court of Appeals <br> For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 99-1074 <br> <br> MERCEDES OQUENDO-AYALA, <br> <br> Plaintiff, Appellant, <br> <br> v. <br> <br> UNITED STATES, <br> <br> Defendant, Appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br> FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br> [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br> Before <br> <br> Torruella, Chief Judge, <br> Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo on brief for appellant. <br> David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Guillermo <br>Gil, United States Attorney, Robert S. Greenspan and Steve Frank, <br>Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Department of Justice, on brief for <br>appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>August 5, 1999 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Per Curiam. The plaintiff, Mercedes Oquendo- <br> Ayala, appeals a district court order that summarily dismissed <br> her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of <br> subject matter jurisdiction. Having thoroughly reviewed the <br> record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the <br> order of dismissal is correct. Plaintiff's tort claims against <br> the Drug Enforcement Administration are time barred as a result <br> of her failure to timely present her administrative claim to <br> that agency, as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act. <br> See 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). See also Santiago-Ramirez v. <br> Secretary of Department of Defense, 984 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. <br> 1993); Kokaras v. United States, 980 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir. <br> 1992); Corte-Real v. United States, 949 F.2d 484, 485-86 (1st <br> Cir. 1991); Eveland v. Director of the CIA, 843 F.2d 46, 50 (1st <br> Cir. 1988); Hau v. United States, 575 F.2d 1000, 1002-03 (1st <br> Cir. 1978). <br> Although plaintiff did timely file a claim with the <br> United States Attorney's office, that office was not the <br> appropriate agency for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, <br> and it complied with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. 14.2(b)(1) <br> when it transferred the claim to the Federal Bureau of <br> Investigation, which plaintiff identified on her claim as the <br> "appropriate agency." Thus, filing with the United States <br> Attorney's office does not constitute "constructive filing" <br> with the Drug Enforcement Administration. See Hart v. <br> Department of Labor ex rel. United States, 116 F.3d 1338, 1341 <br> (10th Cir. 1997); Lotrionte v. United States, 560 F. Supp. 41, <br> 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd, 742 F.2d 1436 (2d Cir. 1983) <br> (TABLE). Cf. Bukala v. United States, 854 F.2d 201, 203 (7th <br> Cir. 1988); Greene v. United States, 872 F.2d 236, 237 (8th Cir. <br> 1989). <br> Plaintiff's 1983 claim against the United States <br> fails because 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting <br> pursuant to federal law. See Chatman v. Hernandez, 805 F.2d <br> 453, 455 (1st Cir. 1986); Cervoni v. Secretary of Health <br> Education & Welfare, 581 F.2d 1010, 1019 (1st Cir. 1978). <br> Affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. </pre>
</body>
</html>
