Kulmann v. U.S. Postal Serv.

── Kulmann v. U.S. Postal Serv. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 25-1106-cv Kulmann v. U.S. Postal Serv. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: EUNICE C. LEE, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges, ERIC R. KOMITEE, District Judge. ∗ 1 _____________________________________ Linda Kulmann, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-1106 ∗ Eric R. Komitee, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. United States Postal Service, Waterbury Branch, Brandon, Manager, Tony, Mail Carrier, Defendants. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Linda Kulmann, pro se, Southbury, CT. FOR DEFENDANTS: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Omar A. Williams, Judge; Robert M. Spector, Magistrate Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Linda Kulmann, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment sua sponte, meaning on its own initiative, dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kulmann sued a branch of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), a mail carrier, and a post office manager, alleging that they failed to deliver her mail. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing 2 the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before Kulmann objected and before her time to do so expired, the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Kulmann’s complaint. The district court subsequently observed that Kulmann had filed her objections in the wrong case and permitted Kulmann additional time to correctly file her objections. Kulmann moved to alter or correct the record, and filed her objections. The district court reviewed her objections, but again adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Kulmann’s complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied as moot Kulmann’s motion to alter or correct the record. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. 1 We review de novo the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Digitel, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 190 (2d Cir. 2001). Because Kulmann “has been pro se throughout, [her] pleadings and 1 We deny Kulmann’s pending motion to alter the record on appeal and for default for failure to appear. We also deny Kulmann’s pending motion for referral to the U.S. Office of the Inspector General.