Clifford Sasselli v. Tricia Christofferson

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLIFFORD L. SASSELLI, No. 08-17105
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02204-GEB-
CMK
v.
TRICIA CHRISTOFFERSON, Public MEMORANDUM *
Service Staff, U.S. Forest Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Clifford L. Sasselli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)
and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005); Coyle v. P.T. Garuda
Indon., 363 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sasselli’s FTCA claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Sasselli failed to file an administrative claim
before filing this action in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a);
Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1034–37 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 796 (2009).
The district court properly dismissed Sasselli’s Bivens claim for failure to
state a claim because Sasselli filed his claim after the applicable two-year statute of
limitations expired. See W. Ctr. for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (explaining that the forum state’s personal injury
statute of limitation applies in Bivens actions); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1.
Sasselli did not object to the magistrate judge’s order staying discovery and
thus forfeited his right to challenge that order on appeal. See Simpson v. Lear
Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that a party who
fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order forfeits the right
to challenge that order on appeal).
2 08-17105
Sasselli’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-17105