Lovell v. Unknown Federal Correctional Officers, 79-1104

Citation595 F.2d 281
Decision Date18 May 1979
Docket NumberNo. 79-1104,79-1104
PartiesFrank D. LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, Jack Hanberry, Warden, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. *
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Frank David Lovell, pro se.

William L. Harper, U.S. Atty., William E. Turnipseed, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and VANCE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lovell left the Atlanta penitentiary on a writ ad testificandum in June 1977. When he was returned in September he allegedly discovered that various items of personal property were missing from his cell. 1 On September 9 he filed an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming a loss of $300 dollars. On or about the same day he filed a request for administrative remedy. The latter was denied with a suggestion that he should file a tort claim. He appealed to the Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the appeal was denied on the basis that he must pursue the tort claim which he had filed, the administrative remedy procedure not being the proper method. From that determination Lovell appealed to the General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, who gave the same response as the Regional Director had.

On October 26 the Bureau of Prisons acknowledged receipt of the tort claim and told Lovell that before it could act he must furnish proof of his ownership and the value of each item claimed. It sent him a form to complete these requirements. On November 9 Lovell resubmitted the same list of items, with minor changes, but gave no values. The form called for the names and addresses of witnesses, and he declined to disclose them. Along with the form Lovell wrote the Bureau that he desired his claim either granted or denied, that he was "merely exhausting this remedy" because he believed there was no remedy available within the Bureau of Prisons, and that if the Bureau felt that he had lied as to ownership of the property it was free to deny the claim.

Later, February 9, 1978, Lovell submitted by letter three forms, "Inmate Personal Property Record", dated May 1976, showing that he owned assorted pencils, assorted books, photographs, walking shorts, sweatsocks, and three legal brief folders. The forms did not delineate the value of any item. Thereafter, in a succession of letters to the Bureau of Prisons Lovell asked for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Claxton v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN. OF US GOVERN.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 30 Octubre 1981
    ...federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). See Ware v. United States, 626 F.2d 1278, 1283 (5th Cir. 1980); Lovell v. Unknown Federal Correctional Officers, 595 F.2d 281, 282 (5th Cir. 1979); Ducharme v. Merrill-National Laboratories, 574 F.2d 1307, 1311 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1002, 99......
  • Surratt v. United States, 83 C 737.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 15 Marzo 1984
    ...was "a case ... where counsel's neglect prevented the agency from acting on the claim." Id.4 In Lovell v. Unknown Federal Correctional Officers, 595 F.2d 281 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam), the court rejected an FTCA claim by an inmate who had failed to place a value on his lost property claim......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT