* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 6, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

HELEN W. COLEMAN, also known as Helen Snell, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DAN G. BLAIR, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management; RANDALL W. RICHARDS; OSCAR HOWARD COLEMAN, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-4195 (D.C. No. 1:04-CV-98-PGC)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff-appellant Helen W. Coleman appeals the di strict court’s dismissal without prejudice of her action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Ms. Coleman alleged in her complaint that defendant s-appellees Oscar Howard Coleman, her former husband, and his divorce attorney, Randall W. Richards, fraudulently caused a divorce decree to g rant her only forty and not fifty percent of Mr. Coleman’s federal civil servic e retirement annuity, in spite of the terms of a decree of separate maintenance provi ding that she would receive fifty percent. She also alleged that defendant-app ellee Dan G. Blair, acting director of the United States Office of Personnel M anagement (OPM), acted as an accomplice to the fraud and embezzlement perpetrate d by Mr. Coleman and Mr. Richards by improperly relying on the fraudulen t divorce decree and denying her the additional ten percent of the annuity. Defendants, relying on separate grounds, moved to d ismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court gr anted Mr. Blair’s motion deciding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction becau se (1) Ms. Coleman failed to identify a waiver of sovereign immunity; (2) she fa iled to exhaust federal administrative remedies with the OPM and Merit Syst ems Protection Board and then failed to file a lawsuit in the proper federal court, the Federal Circuit; (3) she-3-

had no private right of action to bring claims unde r Title 18 of the United States Code; (4) her claims under Title 28 did not waive s overeign immunity; and (5) she failed to exhaust administrative remedies f or a tort claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Also, the district court granted Mr. Coleman’s and Mr. Richards’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, deciding that Ms. Coleman’s claims against them did not rais e a federal question and there was no diversity of citizenship. On appeal, Ms. Coleman continues to argue that she is entitled to half of the annuity. In addition, she argues that the dist rict court improperly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction instead of addressing the merits of her arguments. We review the district court’s dismissal for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction de novo. U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani , 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). Also, we liberally construe Ms. Coleman’s p ro se filings. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Applying these standards, we conclude the district court correctly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its or der granting defendants’ motions to dismiss dated June 8, 2005. R., Doc. 42.-4-

Ms. Coleman also argues on appeal that the districtcourt erred in refusing to allow her to subpoena OPM records. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See EEOC v. Dillon Cos. , 310 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2002) (recognizing this court reviews district court ruling on subpoenas for abuse of discretion). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge