Steinmetz v. U.S. Postal Service et al, No. 2:2009cv00072 - Document 43 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 in full. This matter is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 8/9/2010. Mailed to Steinmetz. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Steinmetz v. U.S. Postal Service et al Doc. 43 Fll.:::D ""n 'i!;[ '- ".... ,·"A r': i 9 ." '.J BY .... .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlllftHY CLERK FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION JOEL THOMAS STEINMETZ, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, VS. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants. CV-09-72-BU-RFC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­) On June 16, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered her Findings and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends that this matter be dismissed. Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In this matter, Plaintiff filed objections on July 1, 2010. Plaintiff's objections require this Court to make a de novo determination ofthose portions of the Findings and I Dockets.Justia.com Recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(I). After a de novo review, the Court determines that Plaintiffs objections are not well­taken and the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ostby are well grounded in law and fact. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Findings and Recommendation be adopted in their entirety. Steinmetz's Complaint alleges a variety of claims arising from his prior Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) proceedings. This Court found in Steinmetz's earlier case (Civil Action No. 07­CV­00132­BLG­RFC­SCO) that the ) Federal Circuit is vested with exclusive jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b (1) to review errors or irregularities arising from MSPB proceedings in nondiscrimination claims. To preserve any possible appeal rights Plaintiff may have had, this Court transferred the previous case to the Federal Circuit. Any claims regarding irregularities arising from his MSPB proceedings should have been presented to the Federal Circuit. This Court has no jurisdiction to review the irregularities raised in Steinmetz's current Complaint and it has no jurisdiction to review any decisions of the Federal Circuit. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of the making of this Order and enter judgment accordingly. 2 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this case on August 5, 2010. However, said Notice of Appeal was filed prior to the filing of this Order and the Clerk's entry of Judgment. If Plaintiff intends to appeal this decision, he must file another notice of appeal after Judgment is entered by the Clerk of Court. If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal after his receipt of this Order and after entry of Judgment, the clerk is directed to notify the Court of Appeals of this Court's certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. It is sufficiently clear that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Steinmetz's claims and no DATED this would suppose an appeal would have merit. day of August, 2010. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.