Rivera-Carbana v. Department of Army ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1039



                              CARLOS R. RIVERA-CARBANA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana on brief pro se.
________________________

            Guillermo  Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del
______________                              ______________________

        Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
___





                                 ____________________



                                   November 7, 1996

                                 ____________________









































                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana
__________    ___ __



            appeals a district court judgment dismissing his Federal Tort



            Claims  action on  the  grounds that  plaintiff's claims  for



            personal   injuries  arising  out  alleged  acts  of  medical



            malpractice were  "forever barred" under 28  U.S.C.   2401(b)



            and an unrelated claim for property damage to  his automobile



            had been waived.1   Plaintiff also appeals a subsequent order
1



            that denied his motion  to reconsider the foregoing judgment.







                 This court  has thoroughly  reviewed the record  and the



            parties'  briefs on  appeal.   We  conclude that  plaintiff's



            personal injury claims were  properly dismissed because  they



            are  barred by the statute of limitations.   Plaintiff failed



            to present  these claims   within  two years  of the  date of



            their accrual, as required by 28 U.S.C.   2401(b).  Plaintiff



            has  also failed to present  a cogent argument addressing his



            property  damage claim on appeal.   Thus, we  deem it waived.



            See Barrett v. United States, 965 F.2d 1184, 1194 n. 19  (1st
___ _______    _____________



            Cir. 1992).  Accordingly,  the judgment of dismissal  and the



            order  denying  plaintiff's  motion  for  reconsideration are



            affirmed.
________










____________________



               1In relevant part, 28 U.S.C.   2401(b) provides that, "[a]
1

            tort claim against the United States shall be  forever barred

            unless  it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal

            agency within two years after such claim accrues ...."



                                         -2-