Ron Childress v. US

Filing 920081222

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1543

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)

Submitted:

December 1, 2008

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Ron employee, Childress brought in a this South action against state federal court

Stella

Donelan,

Carolina

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

have

Childress's

dismissed

subject matter jurisdiction. Although substitution, the Childress district opposed the United that States' was

court

determined

Donelan

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

*

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the See Childress v. United States, No. 3:07-cv-

district court.

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.

AFFIRMED

4