Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03624/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marilyn Doe
Appellee
Thomas James Erickson
Appellant
Kalene Schultz
Appellee
Ione Smischney
Appellee
Natalie Sorvari
Appellee
United States Post Office
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3624

___________

Thomas James Erickson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States Post Office; *

Ione Smischney; Kalene Schultz; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Natalie Sorvari; Marilyn Doe, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas James Erickson appeals from the district court's1

 dismissal of his pro

se civil complaint in which he alleged that the United States Postal Service, through

four of its Minnesota employees, wrongfully refused to deliver his mail or hold it for

pick-up. Upon de novo review, see Goodin v. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv., 444 F.3d

Appellate Case: 06-3624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361352
-2-

998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 930 (2007), we conclude that the

district court properly dismissed Erickson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction because the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over

Erickson’s claims regarding postal rates and services. See 39 U.S.C. § 3662; LeMay

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2006). 

We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Hernandez v. Conriv

Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1999) (Article III deprives federal

courts of power to dismiss case with prejudice where subject matter jurisdiction does

not exist), and affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361352