Court Opinion

ID: 9881795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:01:11.449439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.091571
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1589      Doc: 9        Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1589

        AUDREY CLEMENT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KYM HALL, National Capital Area Director, National Park Service,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00867-MSN-WEF)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Audrey Clement, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1589      Doc: 9        Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Audrey Clement appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject

        matter jurisdiction her 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 the district court’s order. Clement v. Hall, No. 1:22-cv-00867-

        MSN-WEF (E.D. Va. filed May 24, 2023 & entered May 25, 2023). 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