
    Earnest CONROD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tricia A. MOORE, Receiving and Discharge Officer of Yazoo City FCI, also known as Unknown Moore; Stephen Lopez, Receiving and Discharge Officer of Forrest City FCI, also known as Unknown Lopez; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-60362
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
    Earnest Conrod, Jr., Federal Correctional, Institution, Forrest City, Forrest City, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert Gilmon Anderson, David Harrison Fulcher, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Missisippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Earnest Conrod, federal prisoner # 09239-042, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States and two federal corrections officers based on the confiscation of his commissary card. The district court construed Conrod’s claims as also arising under 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).

Conrod argues that the district court improperly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2680 in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his FTCA claim because the court failed to consider whether his claim could be brought under an exception to the statute. However, the exceptions on which Conrad relies all apply to forfeiture proceedings not relevant to the instant case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)(l)-(4).

Conrod also argues that the district court erred in dismissing his Bivens claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that he has a valid excuse for failing to exhaust the last two steps of the grievance process because after he filed his first two grievances, the warden told him that he could not obtain monetary relief and suggested that he file suit in federal court.

“The clear rule of this circuit limits review of claims raised for the first time on appeal to claims involving purely legal questions where [the court’s] failure to consider them would result in a ‘miscarriage of justice.’ ” Vogel v. Veneman, 276 F.3d 729, 734 (5th Cir.2002). Because Conrod’s argument is not purely legal, we will not consider it. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     