Ortiz v. United States Postal Service

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/12/12. (jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
WILLIAM ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:10-cv-425 CAN

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, William Ortiz (“Ortiz”), filed his complaint for loss of mail. The Court now
issues the following order pursuant to the consent of the parties and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment for the Defendant, United States
Postal Service (“USPS”).
I.

PROCEDURE
On July 23, 2010, Ortiz filed his pro se complaint in small claims court against USPS for

loss of mail, listing his damages at $3,500. On October 13, 2010, USPS filed a notice of removal
to this Court. On October 14, 2010, USPS filed its answer to the complaint. On November 23,
2010, the parties consented to have the case decided by the undersigned.
After the parties submitted status reports, the Court set a discovery deadline for July 8,
2011. When the discovery period closed, the Court set the matter for a status conference on
October 14, 2011, to set dispositive motion deadlines.
On November 15, 2011, USPS, filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 14,
2012, Plaintiff, William Ortiz (“Ortiz”), filed a response simply asking the Court to deny the
motion. Neither party has presented the Court with any facts. Ortiz’s pro se complaint contains

no factual basis for his claim. Ortiz’s response contains no recitation of facts.
II.

ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916, 922 (7th Cir. 2001). To
overcome a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party cannot rest on the mere
allegations or denials contained in its pleadings. Rather, the non-moving party must present
sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the
burden at trial. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Robin v. Espo Eng’g Corp., 200
F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir. 2000). Where a factual record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citing Bank of
Ariz. v. Cities Servs. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
Ortiz has asked the Court to deny USPS’s motion for summary judgment, but he has
failed to present the Court with any facts. He simply rests on the mere allegations in his
complaint that his mail was stolen and that he is entitled to the damages he claims. He has not
presented any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, to show the existence of each element of
his case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. As a result, the Court finds that there are no genuine
issues of material fact to be determined.
Furthermore, USPS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)
and §§ 2671 et seq., the United States has waived sovereign immunity to tort claims. However,

2

there are certain exceptions where the United States has retained its sovereign immunity. One
such exception bars “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of
letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2860(b); see Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 485
(2006) (explaining that USPS may be liable for torts committed by employees, but not for claims
arising from the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter). Ortiz’s
claim is specifically for the loss of mail, and the United States is protected from such claims. As
a result, USPS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
III.

CONCLUSION
Because there are no factual disputes to resolve and USPS is protected from Ortiz’s claim

by sovereign immunity, the Court GRANTS USPS’s motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No.
14]. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of USPS.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2012.
S/Christopher A. Nuechterlein
Christopher A. Nuechterlein
United States Magistrate Judge

3