United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 28, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10052
Summary Calendar
DRUCILLA BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH B. BOGAN, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell,
in his individual capacity, ET AL.,
Defendants,
JOHN T. RATHMAN, Associate Warden, Federal Medical Center-
Carswell, in his individual capacity; LOREN THACKERA, Facilities
Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual
capacity; TERRY DAVIS, Facilities Supervisor, Federal Medical
Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; ROBERT BRACKEN,
Safety Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his
individual and official capacity; R. VASLIK, Safety Manager,
Federal Medical Center-Fort Worth, in his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-817-A
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Drucilla Baker, federal prisoner # 13571-064, appeals the
district court’s judgment dismissing her claims under Bivens v.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-10052
-2-
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). Baker argues that the district court erred in its
determination that her claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. She argues that the district court should have
tolled the limitations period while she had a Federal Tort Claims
Act claim pending with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Baker did
not raise this issue in the district court and therefore this
court need not consider it. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover, even if this
court would allow tolling of the limitations period while the
Federal Tort Claims Act claim was pending, Baker’s complaint
would still be untimely.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.