UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1864

DEBBIE BALDWIN,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cv-00108-FL)

Submitted: March 1, 2024 Decided: June 26, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and Joseph DAWSON III, United States 

District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ON BRIEF: Edward P. Yount, R. STEVE BOWDEN & ASSOCIATES, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Daniel Tenny, Maxwell A. Baldi, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States 

Attorney, K. Paige O’Hale, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1864 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Debbie Baldwin (“Baldwin”) appeals the district court’s orders dismissing 

Baldwin’s Complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction based on the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-15(c)—North Carolina’s 

statute of repose for medical malpractice actions. 

Baldwin’s FTCA suit related to significant injuries she suffered due to her treatment 

at a Navy hospital. Baldwin submitted an FTCA administrative claim to the Navy timely

and extensively corresponded with the Navy during the administrative process for four 

years. When the Navy eventually informed her that she needed to file suit to negotiate her 

claim further, she did so within the period required by the FTCA’s statute of limitations. 

Even though she complied with the FTCA’s statute of limitations, the district court 

dismissed her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because she filed her complaint 

more than four years after receiving the negligent treatment and therefore violated a North 

Carolina statute of repose.

On appeal, Baldwin argues that the FTCA’s statute of limitations conflicts with, and 

therefore preempts, North Carolina’s statute of repose. In any event, in Anderson v. United 

States, 669 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2011), this Court rejected that argument in an order certifying 

a question to Maryland’s highest court. The Anderson Court determined that, even if a 

plaintiff complies with the FTCA’s statute of limitations, “an FTCA claim does not lie 

against the United States where a statute of repose would bar the action if brought against 

a private person in state court.” Anderson, 669 F.3d at 165. Accordingly, state statutes of 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1864 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

repose apply to FTCA claims and are not preempted by the FTCA’s statute of limitations.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment on that ground. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court, and argument would not aid in the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1864 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3