
<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>



	<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">



		<!--

		@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

		-->

	</style>

</head>

<body>

<p align=center>

</p><br>

<pre>       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br>                 United States Court of Appeals <br>                     For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 99-1074 <br> <br>                     MERCEDES OQUENDO-AYALA, <br> <br>                      Plaintiff, Appellant, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                       Defendant, Appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br>           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br>                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br>         [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br>                              Before <br> <br>                     Torruella, Chief Judge, <br>               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>     Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo on brief for appellant. <br>     David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Guillermo <br>Gil, United States Attorney, Robert S. Greenspan and Steve Frank, <br>Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Department of Justice, on brief for <br>appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>August 5, 1999 <br> <br> <br> <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>   <br>            Per Curiam.    The  plaintiff, Mercedes Oquendo- <br>  Ayala, appeals a district court order that summarily dismissed <br>  her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of <br>  subject matter jurisdiction.  Having thoroughly reviewed the <br>  record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the <br>  order of dismissal is correct.  Plaintiff's tort claims against <br>  the Drug Enforcement Administration are time barred as a result <br>  of her failure to timely present her administrative claim to <br>  that agency, as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  <br>  See 28 U.S.C.  2401(b).  See also Santiago-Ramirez v. <br>  Secretary of Department of Defense, 984 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. <br>  1993); Kokaras v. United States, 980 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir. <br>  1992); Corte-Real v. United States, 949 F.2d 484, 485-86 (1st <br>  Cir. 1991); Eveland v. Director of the CIA, 843 F.2d 46, 50 (1st <br>  Cir. 1988); Hau v. United States, 575 F.2d 1000, 1002-03 (1st <br>  Cir. 1978). <br>            Although plaintiff did timely file a claim with the <br>  United States Attorney's office, that office was not the <br>  appropriate agency for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, <br>  and it complied with the requirements of 28 C.F.R.  14.2(b)(1) <br>  when it transferred the claim to the Federal Bureau of <br>  Investigation, which plaintiff identified on her claim as the <br>  "appropriate agency."  Thus, filing with the United States <br>  Attorney's office does not constitute "constructive filing" <br>  with the Drug Enforcement Administration.  See Hart v. <br>  Department of Labor ex rel. United States, 116 F.3d 1338, 1341 <br>  (10th Cir. 1997); Lotrionte v. United States, 560 F. Supp. 41, <br>  43 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd, 742 F.2d 1436 (2d Cir. 1983) <br>  (TABLE).  Cf. Bukala v. United States, 854 F.2d 201, 203 (7th <br>  Cir. 1988); Greene v. United States, 872 F.2d 236, 237 (8th Cir. <br>  1989). <br>            Plaintiff's  1983 claim against the United States <br>  fails because  1983 does not apply to federal officials acting <br>  pursuant to federal law.  See Chatman v. Hernandez, 805 F.2d <br>  453, 455 (1st Cir. 1986); Cervoni v. Secretary of Health <br>  Education & Welfare, 581 F.2d 1010, 1019 (1st Cir. 1978).   <br>            Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.  </pre>

</body>

</html>

