IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30403
(Summary Calendar)
ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
WILLIAM H. REED; E. A. BURGESS;
GARY BAZZELL; PHILLIP RODGERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 96-CV-771-I)
- - - - - - - - - -
January 14, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Advanced Materials, Inc. (“AMI”) appeals the dismissal of its
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The individual
defendants were employee auditors for the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (“DCAA”), which performed the auditing and accounting
functions regarding a research and development contract between AMI
and the Department of Defense. Based on DCAA’s analysis, the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Department of Defense disallowed the reimbursement of contract
costs to AMI.
AMI alleges that the individual defendants were negligent in
auditing and analyzing AMI’s contract and committed various acts as
of libel or slander disparaging AMI. AMI has filed these claims
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b),
2671-80. The FTCA acts as a waiver of the United States’ sovereign
immunity from suit. However, the FTCA explicitly excludes any
claims “arising out of . . . libel, slander, . . . or interference
with contract rights. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Although AMI
has framed its claims in terms of negligence, the claims regarding
contract analysis and auditing are clearly based in contract and
cannot be considered tort claims for purposes of the FTCA. See
Davis v. United States, 961 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1991). As none
of AMI’s claims fall within the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign
immunity, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider them and properly dismissed the suit. See Truman v.
United States, 26 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
2