Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanton M. BUCH; Sharon A. Stinus, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-35287
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 17, 2017  Anchorage, Alaska
    Filed August 21, 2017
    Ben Whipple, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin I. Whipple, Palmer, AK, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Richard L. Pomeroy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Anthony Fonstad, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Stanton M. Buch and Sharon A. Stinus timely appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, as barred by the doctrine announced in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950). Reviewing de novo, Whittaker Corp. v. United States, 825 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

Plaintiffs challenge the correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Feres. Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Feres, we must follow it. See, e.g., State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (“[I]t is [the Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.”); Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]n the absence of any Supreme Court decision overruling [an earlier Supreme Court precedent], we must follow the Supreme Court precedent that directly controls, leaving to the Court the prerogative of overruling its own prior decisions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Costo v. United States, 248 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e are bound to follow this well-worn path [of Feres].”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication .and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.