Court Opinion

ID: 9376153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 21:00:39.082971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.830376
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7132      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7132

        TOYE A. TUTIS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00211-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: February 13, 2023                                 Decided: February 28, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Toye A. Tutis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7132      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Toye A. Tutis appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter

        jurisdiction his civil action seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.

        §§ 1346(b), 2671-80.     We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Tutis v.

        United States, No. 5:22-cv-00211-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 2022); see also

        Clendening v. United States, 19 F.4th 421, 432, 434-36 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing

        discretionary function exception), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 11 (2022). We dispense with

        oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2