Case Name: Eric PETERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 07-16218
Parties: Eric PETERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
Eric PETERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-16218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009 .
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Eric Petersen, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
Lynn Trinka Ernce, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eric Petersen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging a final administrative judgment by the Department of Labor ("Department") concerning his worker's compensation claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Staacke v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 280 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the Federal Employees' Compensation Act ("FECA"), 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., provides an exclusive and comprehensive program of workers' compensation for government employees injured in work-related accidents, see Lance v. United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and district courts have no jurisdiction to review final judgments in FECA matters rendered by the Department, see Staacke, 841 F.2d at 281.
Petersen's remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.