Case Name: Shari Jean WELSH; Sam Welsh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-23
Citations: 389 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 09-15435
Parties: Shari Jean WELSH; Sam Welsh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Shari Jean WELSH; Sam Welsh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-15435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 23, 2010.
Shari Jean Welsh, Marina, CA, pro se.
Sam Welsh, Marina, CA, pro se.
Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shari Jean and Sam Welsh appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") action alleging injuries from exposure to carbon tetrachloride at their residence on a former army base. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Terbush v. United States, 516 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States is immune from liability under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); Terbush, 516 F.3d at 1129 (explaining that the discretionary function exception applies if the challenged action involves an " 'element of judgment or choice,' " and is " 'grounded in social, economic, or political policy' " (citations omitted)).
The Welshs' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.