691, 695 (1986) (quoting Little River Lumber Co. v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 492, 494 (1985)); see also Billops v. Department of the Air Force, 725 F.2d 1160, 1164 (8th Cir.1984) (transfer of case from federal district court to Federal Circuit was not appropriate where Federal Circuit would not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim). “It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961. As the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity to be sued under the ADA in the manner plaintiff seeks, this court has no alternative but to dismiss plaintiffs ADA claim. See Whooten v. Bussanich, 2005 WL 2130016, at *7 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 2, 2005) (<HOLDING>). C. Rehabilitation Act Ms. Gray’s final claim
holding that rfras waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to monetary damages the acts reference to appropriate relief was susceptible to more than one interpretation and thus was not an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government