discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Meyer v. Runyon in cases brought against the postal service, the postmaster general is the only properly named defendant

discussed Cited "see" Berthiaume v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car See Soto v. United States Postal Service, 905 F.2d 537 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027 , 111 S.Ct. 679 , 112 L.Ed.2d 671 (1991), and Washington v. McComb Motel Co., 759 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.Miss.1990).

discussed Cited "see" Montalvo v. United States Postal Service See Soto v. United States Postal Serv., 905 F.2d 537 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027 , 111 S.Ct. 679 , 112 L.Ed.2d 671 (1991); Healy v. United States Postal Serv., 677 F.Supp. 1284, 1288-89 (E.D.N.Y.1987).

discussed Cited "see" Blong v. Secretary of the Army See Soto v. U.S. Postal Service, 905 F.2d 537, 539 (1st Cir.1990) (explaining that the only proper defendant is the Postmaster General and the court should dismiss claims against all other defendants, including local supervisors), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027 , 111 S.Ct. 679 , 112 L.Ed.2d 671 (1991); Hall, 695 F.2d at 180 (noting that there is no cause of action under § 2000e-16(c) against the SBA, its regional director, or its district director; instead, the Administrator of the SBA is the only proper defendant); Rys v. United States Postal Service, 702 F.Supp. 945, 947 (D.Mass.) (dismissing …