Case Name: Carlyle WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, American Interstate Insurance Company, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-20
Citations: 353 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 09-13156
Parties: Carlyle WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, American Interstate Insurance Company, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BLACK, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Carlyle WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, American Interstate Insurance Company, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-13156
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2009.
John D. Steel, Matthews, Steel & Moss, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Neeli Ben-David, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BLACK, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant Carlyle Wright filed this action against the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and § 2671 et seq., for personal injury suffered when struck by a United States Postal Service forklift. Finding that Wright was the borrowed servant of the Postal Service at the time of the accident, the district court determined that Wright's claims against the United States were barred by the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-ll(a).
The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and this appeal follows. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this appeal, including the briefs and the arguments of counsel for both parties. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
. Wright was employed as a truck driver for H & H Transport at the time of the accident. H & H Transport had a contract with the Postal Service to transfer mail from a central metropolitan distribution center to outlying postal service facilities.
. Wright had previously settled a worker's compensation claim against H & H Transport for $120,000.
. The district court did not reach the government's alternate argument in favor of summary judgment, on the basis of judicial estop-pel, due to Wright's failure to disclose his tort claim on certain bankruptcy filings, and neither do we.