face of the explicit provisions of [§ 2676] order judgment against [the government employee] in favor of [the plaintiff] in the same action.”); Popal v. United States, 1996 WL 185731 at *3, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4967, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1996) (“Having elected to proceed against both the Government and the individuals and having received judgment against the Government on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs cannot now choose to continue their action against the individual defendants and elect at some later time between the FTCA and Bivens claims.”); Satterwhite v. Bocelato, 130 F.Supp. 825, 829 (E.D.N.C.1955) (entering judgment “only against the United States” and not against the federal employee because of § 2676); Hopper v. United States, 122 F.Supp. 181, 190 (E.D.Tenn.1953) (<HOLDING>); cf. Prechtl v. United States, 84 F.Supp. 889,
holding that the lien of a united states district court judgment was effective for twenty years holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that because a judgment was awarded the plaintiffs against the united states no judgment will be announced against the government employee holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to appeal recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states