Court Opinion

ID: 9371779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 21:00:32.137722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:30.133343
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6358      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6358

        RAMONE WRIGHT,

                             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. (5:21-cv-00028-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: February 10, 2023                                 Decided: February 15, 2023

        Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ramone Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6358      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ramone Wright appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under the

        Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. Because Wright did not

        properly exhaust his administrative remedies, he was barred from bringing the instant suit,

        see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a), and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it,

        see McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Kokotis v. U.S. Postal Serv., 223

        F.3d 275, 278 (4th Cir. 2000); Ahmed v. United States, 30 F.3d 514, 516 (4th Cir. 1994).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as modified to reflect a

        dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366,

        369 (4th Cir. 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 AS MODIFIED

                                                     2