Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04193/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry

W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4193

___________

Philip Jean-Baptiste, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 22, 2006

Filed: June 27, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Philip Jean-Baptiste (Baptiste) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging

negligent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We affirm, because we conclude

that the only claim that Baptiste administratively exhausted failed to state a claim

under Arkansas negligence law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (under FTCA, United States

shall be liable for torts in same manner and to same extent as private individual under

Appellate Case: 04-4193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061387
-2-

like circumstances); Washington v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 183 F.3d 868, 873

(8th Cir. 1999) (under § 2674, “‘under like circumstances’” means that there must be

“private analogue” in state law to government’s conduct); Maneth v. Tucker, 34

S.W.3d 755, 758 (Ark. App. 2000) (threshold question that must be answered in

negligence case is what duty, if any, defendant owed plaintiff); cf. Barnes v. United

States, 448 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s dismissal of FTCA

claim for negligent inspection and negligent advice, because Missouri law did not

impose duty to inspect or to advise; while federal agency was required to follow

federal standards, there were no similar state standards imposing any duty).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061387