the civil rights statutes]”); Williams v. United States, 242 F.3d 169 (4th Cir.2001)(barring a FTCA claim based on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act because North Carolina law does not create a duty on the part of an Indian hospital to provide emergency medical treatment or a duty not to discriminate in refusing to provide treatment.) See also Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States, 721 F.2d 385, 390 (D.C.Cir.1983) (concluding that “quasi-legislative or quasi-adjudicative action by an agency of the federal government [banning a flame-retardant compound used in children’s clothing] is action of the type that private persons could not engage in and hence could not be liable for under local law”); Sea Air Shuttle Corporation v. United States, 112 F.3d 532 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); C.P. Chemical Company, Inc. v. United States,
holding that claimed failure of secretary of transportation and federal aviation administration to take enforcement action was not conduct for which private individual could be held liable and thus did not give rise to a ftca action holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that the rehabilitation act does not create a private right of action against the secretary of transportation where the apa provides an adequate remedy