UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-30959
Summary Calendar
ERNEST JEROME BRANCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1420-M)
May 14, 1997
Before WISDOM, KING, AND SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellant, Ernest Jerome Branch, asks this court to
reverse the district court’s dismissal of his case on res judicata
grounds. We affirm.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined t hat this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Liberally construed, the appellant’s brief indicates that he
sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act in a prior action
numbered 93-2705 in the district court. In that case, the
appellant’s request to amend his complaint to include a claim for
disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 was denied for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies. The record shows that suit was
dismissed after the district court granted summary judgment for the
government. After exhausting his administrative remedies, the
plaintiff filed a second action in the district court, numbered 96-
1420. The district court dismissed the case on res judicata
principles. For the reasons that follow, we do not address the
alleged error in that determination.
In his brief, the appellant states that the issue in this case
concerns whether the court erred in using Louisiana statutes in a
federal court for a federal claim. While the basis of his argument
is unclear, it is apparent that he is appealing the dismissal on
the merits. Because in the instant case the court dismissed the
case sua sponte on res judicata grounds, we are not presented with
any evaluation of the merits of the case in the court below. Thus,
the appellant appears to be asking us to review the district
court’s decision in the case numbered 93-2705. To that extent, the
appeal is untimely.
To the extent that the appellant asks us to review any
determination by the court regarding his claim for disability
2
benefits, we find that the district court was without jurisdiction
to entertain such a claim. The Veterans Judicial Review Act, 38
U.S.C. § 7251, precludes federal district court review of benefits
determinations. See also Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158 (5th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 909 (1996).
Accordingly, for the alternative reasons above, the district
court’s dismissal of the appellant’s case is AFFIRMED.
3