Estes

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff Victoria Marie Estes (“Estes”) appeals the district court’s decision dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Estes brought suit under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992 (“FSHCAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 233 , alleging that she had received negligent dental treatment in June 2002, at a Community Health Centers of the Central Coast facility. Under the FSHCAA, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides the exclusive remedy for medical malpractice by a health care provider who falls within the definition of 42 U.S.C. § 233 (g).

Under the FTCA, an “action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages” unless the claimant has first exhausted administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional in nature and must be interpreted strictly. See Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000). To meet the exhaustion requirement, a claimant must have *565 “presented” the claim in a timely manner to the “appropriate Federal agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). A claim is “deemed to have…