Ron Childress v. US, No. 08-1543 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1543 RON CHILDRESS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant Appellee, and STELLA DONELAN, Terminated, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-03312-RJC) Submitted: December 1, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everett J. Mercer, THE MILES LAW FIRM, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ron employee, Childress Stella brought Donelan, in this a action South against Carolina federal state court alleging defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations. After the United States Attorney certified that Donelan was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the conduct alleged in the complaint, the United States, pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (2000), substituted itself as defendant in Childress s action, removed the action to federal court, 12(b)(1) to and have then moved Childress s pursuant action to Fed. dismissed R. Civ. P. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although substitution, the Childress district opposed court the determined United that States Donelan was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the conduct alleged in Childress s complaint, denied Childress s motion to deny the United States substitution, and granted the United claims. * States motion to dismiss Childress s state law tort We have reviewed the record and find no reversible * It was undisputed that if the United States was correctly substituted as defendant in Childress s action, the action was subject to Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (2000); Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 967 (4th Cir. 1992). 3 error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Childress v. United States, No. 3:07-cv- 03312-RJC (D.S.C. filed Mar. 13, 2008; entered Mar. 14, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.