# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5133 September Term, 2023 1: 23-c v -012 72-UNA Filed O n: Octob er 13 , 20 23 Bob by E. Hazel,

App ellant
v . United Sta tes o f

Am erica, App ellee

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Conso lidate d with 23-5 156

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins, Ka tsas, and W alker, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). U po n co nsid eratio n of the fore go ing an d them otio n to ap po int co un sel, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to app oint coun sel be de nied . In civ il cases, app ellant s are noten titled to a ppo intm entof cou nsel when the y

ha v e n ot d em onst rated suf f icient likeliho od of

succe ss on the m erits. I t is FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s May 18, 20 23 and Jun e 6 , 20 23 orde rs be af f irmed . T he district cou rt did noterr by dismissing app ellant ’s const itution al to rt claims und er th e Fe dera l T ort Claim s Act (“FTCA”) beca use the y

are barred by sovereig n im mu nity. See FDIC v . Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 478 (199 4). T he district cou rt also did n ot e rr by con cluding th at t he United Sta tes h as notwaived imm unity for ap pellan t’s em otion al distre ss claim s un der t he FTCAbe cause the gov ernm entwould no t be liable to t he claima nt “a s a p rivate pe rson” for ref using or

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5133 September Term, 2023
failing to d isclose a vi deo tap e a s exculpato ry evidence un der B rady v . Maryl and , 37 3 U.S. 8 3 (19 63), or un der t he Freedo m of Informa tion Act. Se e Meyer, 51 0 U.S . at 477 –78 . Fu rther, t o th e e xten t ap pellan t attem pte d to raise cla ims p ursua nt t o B ivens v . Six Unkno w n Nam ed Agents of the Fed eral Bu reau of Investigation, 40 3 U.S . 38 8 (197 1), th ese claims fail be cause the United Sta tes is n ot a prop er Bivens de fend ant

. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 4 84– 86. T o th e e xten t ap pellan t argues tha t he sho uld h ave bee n p ermitt ed to a me nd his Bivens claim s to add individual d efend ant s, he ha s forfeited tha t argum entby not raising it in th e d istrict court. Se e K eep seagle v. Perdu e, 856 F.3d 10 39, 10 53 (D.C. Cir. 2017 ). Finally, the district cou rt did notab use its discretion by den y ing reconsid eratio n o f its dism issal orde r, see Fireston e v. Firestone , 76 F.3d 12 05, 12 08 (D.C. Cir. 1996 ), be cause the gov ernm ent ’s ackno w ledgme nt o f an adm inistrative tort co mp laint u nde r the FT CA do es n ot waive so v ereign imm unity, see GAF Corp . v. United Sta tes, 818 F.2d 90 1, 9 04– 05 (D.C. Cir. 1987 ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2