Cahill v. United States of America

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM re MOTION to Enforce settlement 31 and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 05/29/14. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEAN CAHILL,
Plaintiff
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-1129
:
: (Judge Caldwell)
:
: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:

MEMORANDUM

The pro se plaintiff, Sean Cahill, filed this action against the United States
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, for food poisoning
contracted from tainted chicken. Plaintiff and the United States entered into a settlement
agreement whereby Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $2,000 on his claim. The action
was dismissed on August 7, 2013.
On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, alleging he had not yet received Defendant’s payment. We are considering
the magistrate judge’s report recommending that the motion be denied because, in line
with Defendant’s argument, Plaintiff may not have received payment because it may
have been subject to an offset under the Treasury Offset Program.1

1

Before accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, we ordered Defendant to
confirm whether Plaintiff’s payment was subject to an offset. Defendant has complied with that
order and has confirmed that the payment was subject to an offset under the Treasury Offset
Program. See Doc. 40.

Plaintiff has made the following objections to the report: (1) Plaintiff settled
his claim under false pretenses because the settlement agreement provided that
Defendant would only send the payment to Plaintiff’s inmate account; (2) Plaintiff has
repeatedly attempted without success to discover the identity of the person he was
indebted to and when the debt was incurred and cannot contest the offset if he does not
know these facts; (3) Plaintiff’s due process rights under 31 U.S.C. § 3716 were violated
because neither Defendant nor the federal agency to whom he owed the debt ever
notified him; and (4) Plaintiff never agreed to a setoff in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3728.
Plaintiff’s first objection lacks merit. He relies on the letter proposing the
settlement where the government represented that “the only address we are prepared to
send any settlement proceeds is your inmate account.” (Doc. 31, ECF p. 15). This
statement makes no representations as to whether or not any payment would be offset
by the United States Treasury. Plaintiff’s second objection is not persuasive because
Defendant is prohibited by privacy concerns from discovering this information, and both
the magistrate judge and Defendant have given Plaintiff a phone number and mailing
address that would allow him to find out the details of the offset. Plaintiff’s third objection
lacks merit as to Defendant since Defendant was under no obligation to advise him of the
Treasury Offset Program. Finally, as to Plaintiff’s fourth objection, his reliance on section
3728 is misplaced. That section deals with setoffs against judgments entered against the
United States. Here, no judgment was entered against the United States. Instead, a
settlement agreement was reached.

-2-

In sum, we agree with the magistrate judge that the motion to enforce the
settlement agreement should not be granted, and we will adopt his report.

/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: May 29, 2014

-3-