Stacy Goad, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Larry D. Thompson, deceased v. United States of America

Goad v. United States · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · March 20, 2026 · No. CIV-25-052-RAW-GLJ

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma affirmed and adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning the Government’s motion to dismiss Stacy Goad’s Federal Tort Claims Act action arising from Larry D. Thompson’s death after a watercraft collision with an underwater log on Lake Tenkiller. The court held that conversion of the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to a Rule 56 motion was proper and that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA barred the claim. The court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the case.

Holdings

  1. Conversion of the Government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to a motion for summary judgment was proper because the jurisdictional question was intertwined with the merits of the Federal Tort Claims Act claim and both parties submitted materials beyond the pleadings.
  2. The report and recommendation provided adequate notice because both parties had submitted substantial material beyond the pleadings in connection with the motion, placing them on notice that the court could treat the motion as one for summary judgment.
  3. The discretionary function exception barred Plaintiff's claims because the Government's decisions concerning whether and how to place navigational aids or buoys involved judgment or choice and were grounded in policy considerations.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion could properly be converted into a Rule 56 motion.
  2. Whether the parties had adequate notice of and opportunity to respond to conversion of the motion to summary judgment.
  3. Whether the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barred Plaintiff's claims.
  4. Whether the challenged conduct involved an element of judgment or choice under the first prong of the Berkovitz test.
  5. Whether the challenged conduct was grounded in the kind of policy judgment protected by the discretionary function exception under the second Berkovitz prong.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (7)

  • Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 259-60 (10th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Bell v. United States, 127 F.3d 1226, 1228 (10th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Ball v. United States, 967 F.3d 1072, 1075-76, 1079 (10th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988)(followed)
  • Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 (10th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Hardscrabble Ranch, L.L.C. v. United States, 840 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324-25 (1991)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…