bars “claims that arise from alleged misrepresentations, whether negligent or intentional,” citing Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289, 296, 103 S.Ct. 1089, 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983)) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Gardner v. United States, 213 F.3d 735, 737 n. 1 (D.D.C.2000) (concluding that the plaintiffs defamation claim against the United States was barred); Wilson v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 759 F.Supp.2d 55, 64 (D.D.C.2011) (dismissing a former federal employee’s defamation claim because the FTCA explicitly bars such claims); Upshaw v. United States, 669 F.Supp.2d 32, 44 (D.D.C.2009) (dismissing defamation claim of former Library of Congress employee due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA); DeGeorge v. United States, 521 F.Supp.2d 35, 40 (D.D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>); Bonham v. U.S. Gov’t Med. Review Bd., No.
holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim holding that determination of timely filing of complaint under ftca was independent of the merits of plaintiffs ftca claim holding that the ftca barred plaintiffs claim for misrepresentation where alleged false statements made by us agents resulted in destruction of plaintiffs boat holding because plaintiff had not alleged defendant made a misrepresentation or that the alleged defect posed a safety risk the district court  properly dismissed plaintiffs  fraudulent concealment claim