Stephen J. Odell v. Federal Bureau of Investigation; Seattle Pacific University

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN J. ODELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION; SEATTLE PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35660
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00165-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Stephen J. Odell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
and dismissal order in his action alleging state law claims against Seattle Pacific
University (“SPU”) and a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim against the
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35660 2
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review de novo both a grant of summary judgement, Universal Health
Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004), and a dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Kruso v. Ints. Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416,
1421 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Odell’s tort claims
against SPU because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. See
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.100(1).
The district court properly dismissed Odell’s FTCA claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Odell failed to file an administrative claim before filing
this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d
1030, 1034-37 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider Odell’s constitutional claims raised for the first time on
appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Odell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --