under the FTCA. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Accordingly, he has not stated an FTCA claim on which relief can be granted. Punchard has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that, to the extent he seeks monetary damages in excess of $10,000, the United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over his takings claim against the United States pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2) & 1491, a conclusion with which we agree. Although we may transfer a case to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 when it is in the interest of justice, we decline to do so here because Punchard’s takings claim accrued no later than 1990 and is barred by the six-ye ravel Co., 469 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). Punehard is not entitled to mandamus relief
holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial holding that cases involving public rights may constitutionally be adjudicated by legislative courts and administrative agencies without implicating the seventh amendment right to a jury trial holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment