Court Opinion

ID: 9963207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:01:00.125441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.763808
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7310      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/23/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7310

        FARID FATA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:22-cv-04399-MGL)

        Submitted: April 15, 2024                                         Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Farid Fata, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Valerie Newman, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7310      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Farid Fata appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

        magistrate judge and dismissing Fata’s complaint filed under the Federal Torts Claim Act

        (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. The district court dismissed Fata’s medical

        claims for failure to exhaust and applied the FTCA’s discretionary function exception to

        Fata’s COVID-19 claims. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Fata failed to

        exhaust his medical claims, as he did not provide sufficient notice of the specific claims in

        his Bureau of Prisons grievances prior to filing his federal complaint. Additionally, our

        review leads us to conclude that Fata’s remaining claims fall under the discretionary

        function exception because the cited authority involved discretion by prison personnel, as

        well as an element of policy judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        judgment. Fata v. United States, No. 2:22-cv-04399-MGL (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2023). We also

        deny as moot Fata’s motion to expedite. 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