Childress v. United States , 304 F. App'x 169 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Childress brought this action against federal
employee, Stella Donelan, in a South Carolina state 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 court, and then moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) to have Childress’s action dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Although Childress opposed the United States’
substitution, the district court determined that Donelan 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 States’ motion to dismiss Childress’s state law tort
claims. * 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
district court. 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.
AFFIRMED
4