Stanton Buch v. United States , 696 F. App'x 296 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 21 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANTON M. BUCH; SHARON A. No. 16-35287
STINUS,
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00136-HRH
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2017**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Stanton M. Buch and Sharon A. Stinus timely appeal the district
court’s dismissal of their claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2671–2680, as barred by the doctrine announced in Feres v. United States, 340
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 135 (1950). Reviewing de novo, Whittaker Corp. v. United States, 825 F.3d
1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.
Plaintiffs challenge the correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Feres.
Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Feres, we must follow it. See, e.g.,
State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) ("[I]t is [the Supreme] Court’s
prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents."); Kingman Reef Atoll Invs.,
L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2008) ("[I]n the absence of
any Supreme Court decision overruling [an earlier Supreme Court precedent], we
must follow the Supreme Court precedent that directly controls, leaving to the
Court the prerogative of overruling its own prior decisions." (internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Costo v. United States, 248 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2001)
("[W]e are bound to follow this well-worn path [of Feres].").
AFFIRMED.
2