Case Name: Hollie TELFORD, formerly known as Hollie Lundahl, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-31
Citations: 608 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 15-1208
Parties: Hollie TELFORD, formerly known as Hollie Lundahl, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Hollie TELFORD, formerly known as Hollie Lundahl, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1208.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 17, 2015.
Filed: July 31, 2015.
Hollie Telford, Green River, WY, pro se.
Robert Homan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hollie Telford appeals following the district court's dismissal of her Federal Tort Claims Act action and denial of her post-judgment motions. We affirm.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Telford failed to satisfy her burden of showing she presented her claims to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Flores v. United States, 689 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir.2012) (district court may weigh evidence in considering its jurisdiction); Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir.1993) (standard of appellate review). The district court thus correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, see Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 808 (8th Cir.2011) (en banc) (conformity with § 2675(a) is jurisdictional). The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Telford's postjudgment motions. We do not address the new matters that Telford raises on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Telford asserts that we should modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, but we decline to do so because she cites no Federal Tort Claims Act authority supporting the assertion. Her motion to file a supplemental appendix is denied.
. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.