Case ID: f-appx_456/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen J. ODELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; Seattle Pacific University, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-35660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
    Stephen J. Odell, Snohomish, WA, pro se.
    Kristin Berger Johnson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Keith Allen Kemper, Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen J. Odell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his action alleging state law claims against Seattle Pacific University (“SPU”) and a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both a grant of summary judgement, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Kruso v. Ints. Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Odell’s tort claims against SPU because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.100(1).

The district court properly dismissed Odell’s FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Odell failed to file an administrative claim before filing this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1034-37 (9th Cir.2009).

We do not consider Odell’s constitutional claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Odell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.