
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1039                              CARLOS R. RIVERA-CARBANA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana on brief pro se.            ________________________            Guillermo  Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del            ______________                              ______________________        Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ___                                 ____________________                                   November 7, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Carlos R. Rivera-Carbana                 __________    ___ __            appeals a district court judgment dismissing his Federal Tort            Claims  action on  the  grounds that  plaintiff's claims  for            personal   injuries  arising  out  alleged  acts  of  medical            malpractice were  "forever barred" under 28  U.S.C.   2401(b)            and an unrelated claim for property damage to  his automobile            had been waived.1   Plaintiff also appeals a subsequent order                            1            that denied his motion  to reconsider the foregoing judgment.                 This court  has thoroughly  reviewed the record  and the            parties'  briefs on  appeal.   We  conclude that  plaintiff's            personal injury claims were  properly dismissed because  they            are  barred by the statute of limitations.   Plaintiff failed            to present  these claims   within  two years  of the  date of            their accrual, as required by 28 U.S.C.   2401(b).  Plaintiff            has  also failed to present  a cogent argument addressing his            property  damage claim on appeal.   Thus, we  deem it waived.            See Barrett v. United States, 965 F.2d 1184, 1194 n. 19  (1st            ___ _______    _____________            Cir. 1992).  Accordingly,  the judgment of dismissal  and the            order  denying  plaintiff's  motion  for  reconsideration are            affirmed.            ________                                            ____________________               1In relevant part, 28 U.S.C.   2401(b) provides that, "[a]               1            tort claim against the United States shall be  forever barred            unless  it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal            agency within two years after such claim accrues ...."                                         -2-
