Case Name: Carmelita D. VIRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alberto J. MORA, Honorable, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-19
Citations: 255 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 07-55118
Parties: Carmelita D. VIRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alberto J. MORA, Honorable, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Carmelita D. VIRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alberto J. MORA, Honorable, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 07-55118.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 19, 2007.
Carmelita D. Viray, Temecula, CA, pro se.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carmelita Viray appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. See Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 368 F.3d 1109, 1111 n. 2 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
On April 3, 2004, Viray submitted an administrative tort claim alleging that as a result of being terminated from employment with the United States Department of the Navy, she suffered stress and became disabled on July 14, 1983. Viray alleged in her complaint that her administrative tort claim was wrongfully denied and sought damages in the amount of $5,000,000.
Because the administrative tort claim was not filed within two years of its accrual, the district court properly dismissed Viray's action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that claims not pursued within two years of their accrual, fall outside of the Federal Tort Claims Act's limited waiver of sovereign immunity).
Accordingly, appellee's motion for summary affirmance is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.