Court Opinion

ID: 2963991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:40.965586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.690514
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 29, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1986

                                  GREGORY T. MURRAY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Gregory T. Murray on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and  Julie S.  Schrager,
            _______________                                __________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Pro se  plaintiff Gregory Murray appeals  a
                 __________   ___ __

            district court order that  dismissed this Federal Tort Claims

            action for lack of  jurisdiction based on plaintiff's failure

            to  present  a  timely  administrative claim  for  relief  as

            required by 28 U.S.C.   2401(b).  We have thoroughly reviewed

            the  record and the parties'  briefs on appeal.   We conclude

            that  this  action was  properly  dismissed  for the  reasons

            stated  in the  district  court's order.1   Accordingly,  the
                                                    1

            judgment  of the district  court is summarily  affirmed.  See
                                                           ________   ___

            Local Rule 27.1.    

                                
            ____________________

               1Plaintiff  contends that  the  district court  failed  to
               1
            recognize that  the Department of Veterans  Affairs (DVA) did
            not  give him copies of the records of the hospitalization in
            issue  until after the filing deadline had passed.  The point
            is  irrelevant, for  it is  clear that  plaintiff's cause  of
            action accrued long before  he requested his medical records.
            Moreover,  nothing  in  the  record  suggests  that  the  DVA
            prevented  the plaintiff  from  obtaining these  records well
            before the filing deadline expired.

                                         -3-