934 F.2d 1151 (10th Cir.1991), the authority relied upon in the previous order, subject matter jurisdiction depended upon the discretionary function exception to the FTCA which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). In this matter, jurisdiction depends upon the Feres doctrine, a judicially created exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Therefore, it would be improper for the court to treat the government’s motion as one for summary judgment because jurisdiction is not dependent upon the FTCA; it is dependent upon whether Feres applies. See, e.g., Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir.1995) (stating conversion was improper because resolution of the jurisdictional issue did not depend on the FTCA); Atkinson v. United States, 825 F.2d 202, 204 n. 2 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). For this reason, the court disposes of the
holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable recognizing proper disposition when feres applies is to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction not grant summary judgment holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient