v. Bluemink, 511 F.2d 399, 404 (D.C.Cir.1974), (stating that section 2676 “provides that a judgment against the United States shall operate as a bar to any action against the individual employee, but that section proscribes a double recovery, not a suit against the against the individual employee in the first instance”); Engle v. Mecke, 24 F.3d 133, 134 (10th Cir.19 h Cir.2008) (FTCA judgment in government’s favor barred Bivens claim arising from same occurrence pursuant to FTCA’s judgment bar, even though both claims were raised in same lawsuit); Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir.2005) (finding judgment entered on the merits in favor of government on FTCA claim barred Bivens claim against arresting federal agents); Accord Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Serra v. Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th
holding that plaintiffs in the absence of a contrary expression from congress  shall have an action under ftca against the united states as well as a bivens action against the individual officials alleged to have infringed their constitutional rights holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency