Case Name: Samuel Alvin ASHLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-30
Citations: 683 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 16-11597 Summary Calendar
Parties: Samuel Alvin ASHLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 333–333

Head Matter:
Samuel Alvin ASHLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
No. 16-11597 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 30, 2017
Scott Gray, Guest & Gray, Forney, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Dimitri Narciso Rocha, Daniel Shane Read, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel Alvin Ashley, Jr. sued the United States of America (the "government") under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") for injuries allegedly resulting from the actions or inactions of non-professional personnel occurring while he was a prisoner in the Federal Correctional Institution at Seagoville, Texas. His complaint boils down to an assertion under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution for cruel and unusual punishment, a late classification of his action which started as a Texas personal injury claim. In its lengthy and detailed analysis of the jurisdictional implication of Ashley's action, the district court concluded that the government correctly relied on the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA, refutation of which was Ashley's burden to bear.
For essentially the same reasons given by the district court, we affirm its grant of the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5⅛ Cir. R. 47.5.4.