Opinion
Civil Action 6:23-6286-TMC-KFM
04-08-2024
Melanie Vander Poel, Plaintiff, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on the United States Postal Service's (“USPS”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (doc. 7). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff alleges that on May 19, 2022, she shipped a package from Taylors, South Carolina to her son in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin via the USPS (doc. 1-1 at 4). The plaintiff contends that this package contained professional fishing rods in “a near-indestructible non-standard sized rod case specifically designed for protective shipping” (id.). The plaintiff alleges that she paid a fee to the USPS to insure this package up to $1,000.00 (id.). When the plaintiff's son received the package and opened it, he discovered that all of the fishing rods were “severely damaged” (id.). The plaintiff alleges that she submitted an insurance claim, but the USPS denied her claim (id.).
On August 31, 2022, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint in the Greenville County Magistrate Court based on this shipment, seeking $3,163.98, which the plaintiff alleges is triple the cost of the fishing rod replacements and the shipping/insurance costs (doc. 1-1). See Greenville County Public Index, https://www2.greenvillecounty.org/SCJD/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (Vander Poel, Melanie, 2022CV2310303223) (last visited April 5, 2024). On or about September 8, 2022, the magistrate court case was transferred to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas (doc. 1-1). See Greenville County Public Index, https://www2.greenvillecounty.org/SCJD/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (Vanderpoel, Melanie, 2022CP2304934) (last visited April 5, 2024). The USPS filed a notice of removal on December 6, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows removal to the district court any action that is against the United States or any agency thereof for or relating to any act under color of such office (doc. 1). On December 12, 2023, the USPS filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 7). By order filed on December 18, 2023, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if she failed to respond adequately to the USPS's motion (doc. 8). The plaintiff filed a response on January 19, 2024 (doc. 17). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
Rule 12(b)(1) allows defendants to move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When presented with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court "is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue[] and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999) (determination of subject matter jurisdiction "may be based on the court's review of the evidence"). "The court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any of the following bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Friends of Dereef Park v. Nat'l Park Serv., C. A. No. 2:13-cv-03453-DCN, 2015 WL 12807782, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 13, 2015) (internal citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Intern. Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
Sovereign Immunity
The USPS argues that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for this type of claim (doc. 7 at 34). Sovereign immunity is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hendy v. Bello, 555 Fed.Appx. 224, 226-27 (4th Cir. 2014). “Under the principle of sovereign immunity, individuals may not sue the United States or its agencies, including the USPS, without their consent. Global Mail Ltd. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 142 F.3d 208, 210 (4th Cir. 1998). However, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in certain situations where injuries are caused by the negligent acts of governmental employees while acting in the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346. Under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., the FTCA applies to “tort claims arising out of activities of the Postal Service.” 39 U.S.C. § 409(c).
Although the FTCA may waive sovereign immunity for certain tort claims arising out of the activities of USPS, “it is axiomatic that waivers of sovereign immunity are not necessarily total.” Global Mail Ltd., 142 F.3d at 211. Explicitly excluded from the FTCA's waiver of immunity are claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). Because the present action clearly concerns the USPS's alleged miscarriage and negligent transmission of the plaintiff's package, the undersigned finds that her claims against the USPS are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). See, e.g., Chapman v. Greenville S.C. U.S. Postal Serv., C/A No. 6:17-556-TMC, 2017 WL 2332742, at *1 (D.S.C. May 30, 0217) (dismissing a plaintiff's claim on sovereign immunity grounds when the plaintiff alleged that the USPS failed to properly deliver her mail). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the USPS's motion to dismiss be granted.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the district court grant the USPS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 7).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
250 East North Street, Suite 2300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).