Reece

MEMORANDUM **

Richard A. Reece appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that the United States inducted him into the Army because he was mentally retarded, denied him adequate medical care while he was enlisted, and subjected him to non-consensual experimentation before and during his military service. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo whether a claim is barred by Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950). Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). We also review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Marlys Bear Med. v. United *618 States, 241 F.3d 1208 , 1213 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Reece’s claims related to his military service were properly dismissed under Feres , which bars all suits alleging “injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” 340 U.S. at 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 ; see Gerardi v. United States, 408 F.2d 492 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (wrongful induction); Jackson v. United States, 110 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th…