Opinion
No. 08-11660 Non-Argument Calendar.
October 23, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 07-80714-CV-PCH.
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reginald Hill appeals the district court's dismissal of his claims against the United States, finding that they were barred by the statute of limitations. He also appeals an adverse summary judgment in favor of Kathleen Archer and Marilu Machin on Hill's claims against these defendants. We affirm.
A suit against the federal government is barred "unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of the final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). However, statutes of limitation are generally subject to equitable tolling. Cook v. Deltona Corp., 753 F.2d 1552, 1562 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the final denial of claim letter was mailed on February 7, 2007 and that there was no basis for equitable tolling. Therefore, the district court did not err by dismissing Hill's claims against the United States as time-barred.
We also conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Hill's constitutional claims against Kathleen Archer and Marilu Machin were barred by the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA"). See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388-90, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2416-17, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983) (holding that the CSRA precluded an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)); Stephens v. Deft of Health and Human Services, 901 F.2d 1571, 1576-78 (11th Cir. 1990) (noting the CSRA is an adequate remedy and precludes all Bivens actions for personnel actions that allegedly violate the Constitution). Moreover, the district court did not err in granting Archer and Machin's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation here.
Upon review of the record and upon consideration of the parties' briefs, we find no reversible error.