Martinez v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARLOS MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-00494 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendant. (Docs. 7, 8) 17 Carlos Martinez initiated this action against the United States of America under Bivens1 and the Federal Tort Claims Act due to the United States Postal Service’s alleged negligence related to the delivery and handling of Plaintiff’s mail. (Doc. 1.)

20 The Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 7.) The Magistrate Judge first found the complaint does not state a claim under Bivens because no Bivens action lies against the United States itself or against a federal agency. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484 (1994). Second, the Magistrate Judge noted the USPS has not waived sovereign immunity for “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters and postal matter.” (Doc. 7 at 6 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b)).

26 Further, the Supreme Court observed that the terms of § 2680(b) include claims for “for injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because mail either fails to arrive at all or arrives late, in | damaged condition, or at the wrong address.” Dolan vy. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 489 (2006) | (emphasis added). Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for negligent | transmission of mail, the Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiffs claim under the FTCA be | dismissed for lack of jurisdiction with prejudice. (Doc. 7 at 6.) On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed | objections. (Doc. 8.)

6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

7 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the | Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court | ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 22, 2024 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED 11 in full.

12 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: _ August 12, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE