ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case involves alleged physical abuse of Plaintiff James King by United States officials. King sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680, and in the same lawsuit sued the individual government employees under the private cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims, but King appealed only the Bivens claim, so the FTCA judgment became final. In the Bivens litigation on appeal, King v. United States (King I), 917 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2019), rev’d, Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (2021), the individual defendants relied in part on the “judgment bar” of 28 U.S.C. § 2676, which provides that a judgment under FTCA § 1346(b) “shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim,” 28 U.S.C. § 2676. The question arose whether the bar applies when an adverse FTCA judgment (like the one in this case) was based on failure to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1346, which sets forth the requirements for recovery under the FTCA, as contrasted to an adverse FTCA judgment based on an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 to the overall scope of the FTCA. The issue was ultimately resolved squarely in favor of the Defendants by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, reversing a split decision by our court in favor of King on that issue. Brownback, 592 U.S. at 211. Having lost on the judgment-bar issue, King then filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the district court to reopen the FTCA judgment, so that he could retroactively withdraw his FTCA claim, and thereby avoid the judgment bar after all. The district court denied this relief, and King appeals. The district court properly denied the motion, however, because King’s asserted basis for reopening amounted to “a straightforward claim of either attorney error or strategic miscalculation,” neither of which, the district court correctly reasoned, is a valid basis for a reopening under Rule 60. King v. United States, 2024 WL 4609079, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2024).