Coghlan v. Glickman ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60344
Summary Calendar
GEORGE COGHLAN; PEGGY COGHLAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DAN GLICKMAN, In his capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of Agriculture;
NORRIS FAUST, JR., In his capacity as Mississippi
State Executive Director of the Farm Service Agency,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:97-CV-683-WS
--------------------
April 1, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
George and Peggy Coghlan appeal from the district court’s
orders granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. Construing their arguments as
challenges to the district court’s summary judgment ruling, the
Coghlans argue that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) acted
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-60344
-2-
unlawfully and violated administrative regulations by failing to
notify the Coghlans of its appeal from the hearing officer’s
adverse “bad faith” decision to the National Appeal Division’s
(NAP) Acting Director. They further contend that the FSA acted
deceptively in calculating the Coghlans’ outstanding debt, in
preparing a feasibility report, and in failing to honor the prior
reversals issued by the NAD’s hearing officers. Finally, the
Coghlans assert that the district court erred in dismissing their
federal tort claims for failing to exhaust administrative
remedies since they exercised “due diligence” in pursuing these
claims.
The Coghlans fail to identify an genuine issue of material
fact sufficient to disturb the district court’s summary judgment
ruling in favor of the defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Furthermore, because the Coghlans did not exhaust their
administrative remedies, the district court did not err in
dismissing the federal tort claims for lack of jurisdiction. See
Price v. United States, 81 F.3d 520, 521 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Coghlans’ motion to supplement the record with documents
not presented to the district court is DENIED. See United States
v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1986). Their motion to
stay is also DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED.