114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-03 (D.C.Cir.1984). “[A] waiver of sovereign immunity must be ‘unequivocally expressed’ and its conditions must be ‘strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’ ” Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 338 F.Supp.2d 97, 103 (D.D.C.2004) (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981)). The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., waives the United States’ immunity, but only as to certain common law torts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2679(b). “[T]he United States simply has not rendered itself liable under § 1346(b) for constitutional tort claims.” FDIC, 510 U.S. at 478, 114 S.Ct. 996; but see id. at 483, 114 S.Ct. 996 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has not cited to any authority from
holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added recognizing that the state enjoys sovereign immunity in regard to tort actions unless the legislature waived immunity pursuant to a specific statute holding that federal savings and loan insurance corporations sueandbesued clause waived the agencys sovereign immunity for meyers constitutional tort claim holding that a claim that sovereign immunity has been waived is itself waived if not argued on appeal holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity