Summary
stating that the "court is not obliged to scour the record in search of potential arguments"
Summary of this case from 2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.Opinion
No. 08-55236.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 8, 2009.
Pierre Genevier, Los Angeles, CA, prose.
U.S. Attorney, Esquire, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-05548-AG.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pierre Genevier appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Genevier's action was not cognizable under the FTCA because, in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss, Genevier did net allege any theory of liability under which the defendants would be liable as private individuals. See United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 45-46, 126 S.Ct. 510, 163 L.Ed.2d 306 (2005) (holding that the FTCA does not apply to actions based on a state law that "imposes liability on municipal or other local governments for the negligence of their agents"); see also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the court is not obligated to scour the record in search of potential arguments).
Genevier's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All Pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.