correctly states that the requirement that a claimant first present his claim to the proper agency is jurisdictional. See Farmers State Sav. Bank v. Farmers Home Admin., 866 F.2d 276, 277 (8th Cir.1989). The government then asserts that FGS sent the BIA an administrative claim on November 6, 1992", and that FGS filed its complaint in the present action on November 10, 1992. Because the BIA had not made a final disposition of the FGS claim before the complaint was filed nor had six months passed during which the BIA failed to make a final disposition of the claim, the government argues that FGS has not satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisite of administrative presentment under the FTCA. See McNeil v. United States, — U.S. —, — - — , 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1981-82, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) (<HOLDING>). FGS counters the government’s argument by
holding premature a suit filed before final administrative determination of claimants administrative claim holding that habeas corpus petitions are premature until administrative remedies have been exhausted holding that the ftca bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts recognizing the principle that an administrative agency error should not work to a claimants detriment