322, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 1273, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (citations omitted). “This requirement of judgment or choice is not satisfied if a ‘federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow,’ because ‘the employee has no rightful option but to adhére to the directive.’ ” Id. (quoting Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 1958-59, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988)). Second, the judgment or decision must be grounded on considerations of social, economic, or political public policy. Id. at 323-24, 111 S.Ct. at 1273-74. a. Discretionary Conduct The United States is under no statutory duty to establish an aid to navigation at a particular place. See Tringali Bros. v. United States, 630 F.2d 1089, 1090 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980) (<HOLDING>). Although, the Coast Guard has the specific
holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that while a district court has discretion to consider other materials in the record it has no obligation to do so where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found holding that the coast guard has no statutory duty to place navigational aids in hazardous waterways but is authorized to do so