The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-1958•Tracy McNair v. United States of America
21-1958Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 24, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1958
TRACY MCNAIR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00051-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam.
Tracy McNair, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tracy McNair appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
McNair’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to exhaust her
administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-
2680. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). In her informal brief, McNair raises several issues that are unrelated to the
reasoning underlying the district court’s order. We do not address any issue that is not
raised in the informal brief. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). In any event, the district court did not err in
determining that it lacked jurisdiction because McNair failed to demonstrate that she
exhausted her administrative remedies before filing her suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 233(a), (g).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.