Howard Bearden v. United States

988 F.2d 117 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Howard BEARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-55652. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 1, 1993. * Decided March 5, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-92-0326-KN, David V. Kenyon, District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Howard Bearden appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 . The district court found that Bearden failed to file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and we affirm. 3 Bearden…