Ron Childress v. US
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RON CHILDRESS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant Appellee, and STELLA DONELAN, Terminated, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-03312-RJC)
December 1, 2008
December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everett J. Mercer, THE MILES LAW FIRM, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ron employee, Childress brought in a this South action against state federal court
alleging defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations. After the United States Attorney certified that
Donelan was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the conduct alleged in the complaint, the United States, pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort
Compensation Act of 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (2000), substituted itself as defendant in Childress's action, removed the action to federal 12(b)(1) court, to and then moved pursuant action to Fed. R. for Civ. lack P. of
subject matter jurisdiction. Although substitution, the Childress district opposed the United that States' was
acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the conduct alleged in Childress's complaint, denied Childress's
motion to deny the United States' substitution, and granted the United claims. * States' motion to dismiss Childress's state law tort
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
It was undisputed that if the United States was correctly substituted as defendant in Childress's action, the action was subject to Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (2000); Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 967 (4th Cir. 1992). 3
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the See Childress v. United States, No. 3:07-cv-
03312-RJC (D.S.C. filed Mar. 13, 2008; entered Mar. 14, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?