GORDON J. QUIST, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Betty Dupree ("Plaintiff"), the wife of a federal prisoner, has brought the instant action against Defendant, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., to recover monetary damages for the alleged loss of Plaintiff's husband's ring. On March, 17, 2003, BOP moved for summary judgment (docket no. 20). Plaintiff has failed to respond to BOP's motion for summary judgment within the time prescribed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(c), and again failed to respond after the Court issued its April 17, 2003, Order for Responsive Pleading (docket no. 24). In such cases, the Sixth Circuit has held that:
a district court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of a movant simply because the adverse party has not responded. The court is required, at a minimum, to examine the movant's motion for summary judgment to ensure that he has discharged that burden.
Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 1991). See also Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trs., 980 F.2d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 1992) (noting that where the nonmoving party has not responded a court's reliance on facts advanced by the movant is proper and sufficient). The Court has thoroughly reviewed BOP's motion for summary judgment and finds that BOP has discharged its burden.
First, the FTCA provides that the United States is the only proper defendant in a suit alleging negligence by a federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a). "Failure to name the United States as a defendant in an FTCA suit results in a fatal lack of jurisdiction." Allgeier v. United States, 909 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Vernell by and through Vernell v. United States Postal Service, 819 F.2d 108, 110 (5th Cir. 1987); Myers Myers, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 527 F.2d 1252, 1256 (2d Cir. 1975)). Plaintiff has only named BOP alone as a defendant in the instant case, and this FTCA claim cannot lie against BOP eo nomine. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 515, 72 S.Ct. 410, 412 (1952). Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim.
Second, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring the instant action on behalf of her husband, a third party. It is undisputed that the allegedly lost ring belonged to Plaintiff's husband and not to Plaintiff. While a litigant normally may not assert the legal rights of a third party, Harker v. Troutman (In re Troutman Enters., Inc.), 286 F.3d 359, 364 (6th Cir. 2002), "[a] litigant may raise a claim on behalf of a third party if the litigant can demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete, redressable injury, that it has a close relation with the third party, and that there exists some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests," Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 289 n. 6 (6th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff may be able to demonstrate a "close relationship" with her husband by virtue of their marriage, however, Plaintiff has not established that her husband could not have filed administrative claims or a lawsuit regarding his ring on his own behalf. Thus, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant suit.
Third, BOP proffers that the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 29 U.S.C. § 2680(b). Since the Court will grant BOP's motion based on the Court's lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiff's lack of standing to bring the instant suit, the Court need not reach this third ground.
Therefore, BOP's motion for summary judgment will be granted. An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.