Court Opinion

ID: 9958805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 21:00:39.816583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:36.475391
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/08/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1595

        ROBERT BLANEY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BEATRIZ GONZALEZ; JENNIFER FERNANDES; JESSICA GNAGEY;
        BRENDA MARTINEAU,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-02264-JKB)

        Submitted: February 23, 2024                                      Decided: April 8, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Lombardo Cusson, Alicia L. Shelton, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/08/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Blaney, a former applicant for employment with the National Security

        Agency (“NSA”), appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint for lack

        of jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. On appeal, Blaney raises multiple challenges

        to the district court’s conclusion that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.

        95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified, as amended, in various sections of Title 5 of the United

        States Code) (CSRA), precluded judicial review of most of his claims against Defendants,

        employees of the NSA. He further contends that the district court misconstrued his fraud

        claim and therefore erred by substituting the United States as a defendant and dismissing

        that claim on sovereign immunity grounds.

               In reviewing the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

        under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “[w]e review the district court’s factual findings on

        jurisdiction for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo.” K.I. v. Durham Pub. Schs.

        Bd. of Educ., 54 F.4th 779, 788 (4th Cir. 2022). “When a defendant files a motion under

        Rule 12(b)(1) challenging subject-matter jurisdiction and relying simply on the allegations

        of the complaint, the court must take the jurisdictional facts alleged as true—as in the case

        of a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6)—and determine, as a matter of law, whether the court

        has jurisdiction.” Blenheim Cap. Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 53 F.4th 286,

        292 (4th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-886 (U.S. Mar. 15, 2023).

               We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s orders. Blaney v. Gonzalez, No. 1:19-cv-02264-JKB (D. Md. Sept. 17,

        2020; Apr. 12, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1595      Doc: 17        Filed: 04/08/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3