Case Name: Rodney BOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO; SHU Officer Barnes; SHU Officer Pharrell; Counselor Dickens, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-09
Citations: 473 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 12-6131
Parties: Rodney BOOMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO; SHU Officer Barnes; SHU Officer Pharrell; Counselor Dickens, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Rodney BOOMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO; SHU Officer Barnes; SHU Officer Pharrell; Counselor Dickens, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-6131.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 4, 2012.
Decided: May 9, 2012.
Rodney Boomer, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Boomer appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the claim he asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671-2680 (West 2006 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Boomer's pending motion to appoint counsel and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
In so concluding, we find it unnecessary to evaluate whether the district court correctly concluded that the prison mailbox rule is inapplicable to FTCA administrative claims. Even assuming the mailbox rule does apply, Boomer failed to adduce any support for his unsworn recitation that his administrative claim was submitted prior to his initiation of this litigation. Thus, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Boomer's complaint.