Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00463/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00463-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO S. MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

CIV S-05-0463 FCD PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

—NFN—

On March 8, 2004, this action was removed from the San

Joaquin County Superior Court, Small Claims Division, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, 1446(a) and 2679(d). The underlying

action (Case No. TS06310), filed February 9, 2005, seeks $5,000

from named defendant Mary Wilson for “False, malicious

statements. Defamation of character, slander, with intent to

damage reputation, authority, official standing and position.” 

Wilson is an employee of the United States Defense

Logistics Agency, asserts she was acting within the scope of her

Case 2:05-cv-00463-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

employment during the alleged incidents and that the United

States is therefore the proper defendant in this action. 

The United States, as the proper defendant, seeks to dismiss the

action. 

Plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor statement

of nonopposition to the motion as required by E. D. Cal. L. R.

78-230(c), which this court construes as acquiescence to the

motion, E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c), 11-110, and 83-183. 

Dismissal is also warranted on the merits. 

Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the federal

government and its agencies from suit. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510

U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional; the

United States may not be sued without its consent, which is a

prerequisite for jurisdiction. Id. 

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) waives the sovereign

immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by

federal employees and confers exclusive jurisdiction over such

claims upon the federal district courts. This remedy is the

exclusive remedy for injury or loss of property or personal

injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or

wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while

acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. §

2679(b). 

The court finds that Mary Wilson was acting within the

scope of her office or employment in committing or omitting the

acts complained of herein. See Certification of Scope of Federal

Case 2:05-cv-00463-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Employment duly made by Edmund F. Brennan, Chief of Defensive

Civil Litigation, Civil Division, Office of the U.S. States

Attorney, Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2679(d).

Claims under the F.T.C.A. are not cognizable in federal

district court “unless the claimant shall have first presented

the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall

have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by

certified or registered mail.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Defendant

avers plaintiff filed no administrative claim and plaintiff does

not dispute it. Even had plaintiff filed an administrative

claim, this action would be barred because the waiver of

sovereign immunity provided by the FTCA does not extend to claims

arising out of libel and slander. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). 

Accordingly, I recommend that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be granted.

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the

Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00463-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 20, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00463-FCD-PAN Document 6 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 4