Rodney Boomer v. Kuma Deboo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00007-JPB-DJJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998850882]. Mailed to: R. Boomer. [12-6131]

Appeal: 12-6131

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6131

RODNEY BOOMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KUMA DEBOO; SHU OFFICER
COUNSELOR DICKENS,

BARNES;

SHU

OFFICER

PHARRELL;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00007-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted:

May 4, 2012

Decided:

May 9, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Boomer, Appellant Pro Se.
Alan McGonigal, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6131

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rodney
accepting

the

Boomer

appeals

recommendation

of

the

district

the

court’s

magistrate

judge

order
and

dismissing the claim he asserted under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (the “FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671-2680 (West 2006 & Supp.
2011).

We

error. *

Accordingly, we deny Boomer’s pending motion to appoint

counsel

and

dispense

have

reviewed

affirm

with

oral

the

the

record

judgment

argument

of

and

the

because

find

no

district
the

facts

reversible

court.
and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

In so concluding, we find it unnecessary to evaluate
whether the district court correctly concluded that the prison
mailbox rule is inapplicable to FTCA administrative claims.
Even assuming the mailbox rule does apply, Boomer failed to
adduce any support for his unsworn recitation that his
administrative claim was submitted prior to his initiation of
this litigation.
Thus, the district court properly concluded
that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Boomer’s complaint.

2