BLODGETT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
COLBY BLODGETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:24-cv-00111-SDN
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
After a United States Postal Services (“USPS”) truck collided with Plaintiff Colby
Blodgett’s vehicle, Mr. Blodgett sued the United States for property damage and personal
injuries. ECF No. 1. The Court previously granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for
personal injury damages exceeding $16,850.75. ECF 20. This matter is now before the
Court on Mr. Blodgett’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the claims for
$16,850.75 for property damage. For the reasons that follow, Mr. Blodgett’s motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This Order incorporates by reference the factual and procedural background as
detailed in my prior Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, see ECF No. 20 at 1–
4, and my Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, see ECF No. 32 at 2–3.
On October 22, 2024, I granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Mr. Blodgett’s
personal injury claims in excess of $16,850.75, finding Mr. Blodgett had failed to comply
with the necessary administrative deadlines by not providing a value of his physical injury
before USPS took final action on his claim for damages. See ECF No. 29 at 11–12. I later
Case 1:24-cv-00111-SDN Document 53 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
denied Mr. Blodgett’s motion for reconsideration of the Order granting the motion to
dismiss. See ECF No. 32.
On September 17, 2025, Mr. Blodgett filed his motion for summary judgment on
his remaining claims for property damage, ECF No. 45, supplemented by his statement
of material facts, ECF No. 45-1. Mr. Blodgett argues “the undisputed record establishes
that Plaintiff gradually slowed down and stopped to wait for a vehicle . . . and that shortly
thereafter, his vehicle was rear ended by the USPS Truck driven by Barnes.” Id. at 3.
Additionally, Mr. Blodgett asserts the undisputed facts establish “the collision occurred
as a result of Barnes’ failure to operate the Postal Truck with reasonable care” and that he
incurred approximately $16,000 in property damage. Id. On December 29, 2025, the
United States filed its response to Mr. Blodgett’s summary judgment motion, admitting
each statement contained in Mr. Blodgett’s statement of material facts, which relate solely
to the property damages as the only damages remaining at issue. See ECF No. 52 at 2–3.1
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A dispute is genuine if a rational factfinder could resolve it in favor of either
party. Rando v. Leonard, 826 F.3d 553, 556 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Borges ex rel.
S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir. 2010)). A fact is material if it could
affect the outcome of the case. Tang v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 821 F.3d 206, 215 (1st Cir.
2016) (quoting Pérez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart P.R., Inc., 656 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2011)). The
1 With respect to Mr. Blodgett’s statement of fact regarding the property damage to his vehicle, the United
States responds as follows: “While Defendant believes the value of the property damages to be marginally
less than claimed, for purposes of this response, Defendant admits.” ECF No. 52 at 3.
Case 1:24-cv-00111-SDN Document 53 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
moving party “bears the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact
exists.” Feliciano-Muñoz v. Rebarber-Ocasio, 970 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2020). Then, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to show “specific facts sufficient to deflect the
swing of the summary judgment scythe.” Tang, 821 F.3d at 215 (quoting Mulvihill v. Top-
Flite Golf Co., 335 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2003)).
Under Maine law, a cause of action for negligence has four elements: “(1) a duty of
care owed to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) causation, that
is, a finding that the breach of the duty of care was a cause of the injury.” Sebago Land
Devs., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F. Supp. 3d 177, 188 (D. Me. 2024)
(quoting Bell ex rel. Bell v. Dawson, 2013 ME 108, ¶ 17, 82 A.3d 827).
Here, the United States has admitted each statement of material fact submitted by
Mr. Blodgett. See ECF No. 45-1 at 1; ECF No. 52 at 2–3. I thus find the undisputed record
before the Court establishes the required elements of negligence and that Mr. Blodgett “is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). I note further that nothing
about this decision alters the analysis and rulings contained in my prior orders granting
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Mr. Blodgett’s motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Blodgett’s motion for summary judgment, ECF
No. 45, is GRANTED, and I find that Mr. Blodgett is entitled to property damages in
the amount of $16,716.77.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 14th day of January, 2025.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00111-SDN Document 53 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>