Hollie Telford appeals following the district court’s 1 dismissal of her Federal Tort *446 Claims Act action and denial of her post-judgment motions. We affirm.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Telford failed to satisfy her burden of showing she presented her claims to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Flores v. United States, 689 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court may weigh evidence in considering its jurisdiction); Belle court v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of appellate review). The district court thus correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, see Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 808 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (conformity with § 2675(a) is jurisdictional). The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Telford’s postjudgment motions. We do not address the new matters that Telford raises on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Telford asserts that we should modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, but we decline to do so because she cites no Federal Tort Claims Act authority supporting the assertion. Her motion to file a supplemental appendix is denied.