
    Drucilla BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph B. BOGAN, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity, et al., Defendants, John T. Rathman, Associate Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Loren Thackera, Facilities Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Terry Davis, Facilities Supervisor, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Robert Bracken, Safety Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual and official capacity; R. Vaslik, Safety Manager, Federal Medical Center-Fort Worth, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-10052.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 28, 2004.
    Drucilla Baker, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Howard Alan Borg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Drucilla Baker, federal prisoner # 13571-064, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Baker argues that the district court erred in its determination that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. She argues that the district court should have tolled the limitations period while she had a Federal Tort Claims Act claim pending with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Baker did not raise this issue in the district court and therefore this court need not consider it. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, even if this court would allow tolling of the limitations period while the Federal Tort Claims Act claim was pending, Baker’s complaint would still be untimely.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     