United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J.
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS
The
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may serve and
file written objections to this recommendation. Objections
should be specific and should include the factual or legal
basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual
finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence
that supports your objection. An original and one copy of
your objections must be received in the office of the United
States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days
from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy
will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file
timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact.
If you
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at
the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy,
or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial
evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your
objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
72201-3325
DISPOSITION
I.
INTRODUCTION
Terrance
Smith (“Plaintiff”) had a bone to pick with
Glenda Curtis - Postmaster of the Corning, Arkansas Post
Office - and sued her in the Corning District Court (Small
Claims). (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff initiated this cause of
action because the United States Postal Service (USPS)
refused to deliver his mail due to his “letter carrier
experienc[ing] difficulty in delivering mail to [his] address
due to animal interference from [Plaintiff's] dog.”
(Id. at 4.) The USPS, through Ms. Curtis, requested
that Mr. Smith sign a “Pet Restraint Agreement”
to confirm that Plaintiff would “properly restrain
[his] animals to ensure the safety of [postal]
employees.” (Id.) Plaintiff was informed he
had thirty days to sign the letter or his mail would be
returned to sender. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff
was given the option of “placing a mail receptacle
curbside.” (Id.)
Rather
than sign the agreement or place a mailbox curbside, Mr.
Smith sued Ms. Curtis for breach of promise, fraud, and
negligence. (Id. at 1.) It appears Mr. Smith had
relied on the USPS's informal motto: “Neither snow
nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers
from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”
Yet, according to the USPS, “The number of postal
employees attacked by dogs nationwide reached 6, 755 in 2016
- more than 200 higher than the year
before.”[1]
Now, in
dog-eat-dog fashion, the United States has removed this
matter from the Corning District Court and the matter has now
become a federal case. The United States argues that Mr.
Smith is barking up the wrong tree and has now filed a Motion
to Substitute the United States as Defendant and to Dismiss
Complaint against United States. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff has
not responded, and this matter is now ripe for a decision.
After careful review, ...