George Paul Laroque, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America; U.S. Immigration & Naturalizationservice; Jim Ogden, Investigator; Department of State;u.s. Consulate to Australia; Carl F. Troy, U.S. Consul Toaustralia, Defendants-appellees, 902 F.2d 1565 (4th Cir. 1990)

George Paul LaRoque appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action brought under Bivens¹  and the Federal Tort Claims Act. In his complaint LaRoque alleged the defendants allowed him illegal entry into the United States and violated his rights under international law and the United States Constitution incident to his deportation from Australia. The action was originally brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia but was transferred, on defendants' motion, to the North Carolina district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).²  LaRoque also challenges the propriety of the transfer.³  We find no error in the transfer or the dismissal of the action and affirm.

Although Bivens held that sovereign immunity does not shield federal officers in their individual capacities from liability for violations of an individual's constitutional rights, it did not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its entities. Radin v. United States, 699 F.2d 681, 685 (4th Cir. 1983). LaRoque's complaint against the government defendants, therefore, although properly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, was barred because he failed to file an administrative claim as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.