approval process as a result of modifying its prior certifications.”). The court thus concludes that the conduct was based on considerations of public policy and is protected by the discretionary function exception. IV. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the United States’ motion to dismiss be, and it hereby is, granted. It is further ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, dismissed and stricken from the docket. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. 1 . Holbrook contends that the jurisdictional issue in this dispute is inextricably intertwined with the merits of his claim, precluding dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). See Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Holbrook's reliance on Kerns is misplaced,
holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order recognizing that in those cases where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute it is the better view that  the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits citations omitted holding that rule 12b1 is inappropriate avenue of dismissal if jurisdictional allegations are intertwined with merits of plaintiffs ftca claims holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding that determination of timely filing of complaint under ftca was independent of the merits of plaintiffs ftca claim