MURPHY v. U.S. MARSHALS

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/23/17.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VALERIE MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

U.S. MARSHALS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-1949-RC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), ECF No. 4. Defendant contends that jurisdiction is lacking because plaintiff failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Plaintiff has
not complied with the Court’s November 22, 2016 Order by responding to the instant motion by
December 30, 2016, nor has she requested additional time to respond. Consistent with the
advisements in the order, the Court finds that plaintiff has conceded defendant’s characterization
of her complaint as sounding in tort and its valid argument for dismissal.
Before obtaining judicial review under the FTCA, a plaintiff must “first present the claim
to the appropriate Federal agency and [her] claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in
writing and sent by certified or registered mail,” or not finally denied “within six months after it
is filed[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The Court of Appeals has “treated the FTCA’s requirement of
filing an administrative complaint with the appropriate agency prior to instituting an action as
jurisdictional.” Simpkins v. D.C. Gov't, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing McNeil v.

1

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Odin v. United States, 656 F.2d 798, 802 (D.C. Cir.
1981)).
Defendant has no record of receiving a claim from plaintiff “arising out of the incident
described in the complaint.” Decl. of Gerald M. Auerbach ¶ 4, ECF No. 4-2. Plaintiff has
offered nothing to the contrary. Consequently, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
(affirming the district court’s dismissal of unexhausted FTCA claim “for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction”); Simpkins, 108 F.3d at 371 (noting that “with the case in this posture, the court
could no more rule in favor of the government than against it”). A separate order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.

________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Date: January 23, 2017

2