
    John David CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin A. SPEESE; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-16379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 27, 2011.
    John David Castle, pro se.
    Roger Wenthe, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

John David Castle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Castle’s Bivens claim against defendant Speese for failure to state a claim because Castle filed this action after the applicable two-year statute of limitations expired. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4)(e); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 408-10 (9th Cir.1991) (personal injury statute of limitations under state law applies to Bivens claims). Castle failed to allege facts to establish a basis for tolling of the limitations period. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.250 (listing grounds for statutory tolling); Seino v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada, 121 Nev. 146, 111 P.3d 1107, 1112 (2005) (discussing equitable tolling); see also Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2008) (tolling provisions under state law apply to Bivens claims).

The district court properly dismissed Castle’s FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Castle failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Brady, 211 F.3d at 502. Castle’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the Alien Tort Statute, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     