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[Unpublished]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-