Court Opinion

ID: 9382180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:47.727928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.461707
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6416     Doc: 45        Filed: 03/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-6416

        MARCOS F. SANTIAGO,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Defendant – Appellee.

                                             No. 22-6580

        MARCOS F. SANTIAGO,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00436-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                   Decided: March 23, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6416      Doc: 45         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcos F. Santiago, Appellant Pro Se. Krista Consiglio Frith, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNTED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6416      Doc: 45        Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Marcos F. Santiago appeals the district court’s orders 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, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider.

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

        district court’s orders. Santiago v. United States, No. 7:21-cv-00436-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.

        Mar. 14, 2022 & Mar. 28, 2022). We deny Santiago’s motions for appointment of counsel,

        to compel or direct the United States to respond, and for consideration of new evidence.

        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

                                                    3