Hollie Telford v. United States, No. 15-1208 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court did not err in finding plaintiff had failed to present her claims to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1208 ___________________________ Hollie Telford, formerly known as Hollie Lundahl lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - North Platte ____________ Submitted: July 17, 2015 Filed: July 31, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Hollie Telford appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of her Federal Tort Claims Act action and denial of her postjudgment motions. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Telford failed to satisfy her burden of showing she presented her claims to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Flores v. United States, 689 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court may weigh evidence in considering its jurisdiction); Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of appellate review). The district court thus correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, see Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 808 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (conformity with § 2675(a) is jurisdictional). The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Telford’s postjudgment motions. We do not address the new matters that Telford raises on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Telford asserts that we should modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, but we decline to do so because she cites no Federal Tort Claims Act authority supporting the assertion. Her motion to file a supplemental appendix is denied. ______________________________ -2-
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.
