Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30058 Conference Calendar ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GLEN STEEB, DR.; KENNAN BUECHTER, DR.; THAI NGUYEN, DR.; VA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2040-S - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roosevelt Williams, Jr. appea
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30058 Conference Calendar ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GLEN STEEB, DR.; KENNAN BUECHTER, DR.; THAI NGUYEN, DR.; VA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2040-S - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roosevelt Williams, Jr. appeal..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30058
Conference Calendar
ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GLEN STEEB, DR.;
KENNAN BUECHTER, DR.; THAI NGUYEN, DR.;
VA MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-2040-S
--------------------
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roosevelt Williams, Jr. appeals the dismissal of his
malpractice suit for failure to file a timely administrative
claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Williams fails to brief
the issue of timeliness, and it is deemed waived. See Hidden
Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin,
138 F.3d 1036, 1045 n.6 (5th Cir.
1998); Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Williams’ appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-30058
-2-
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.