OPINION and ORDER

JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.

On June 1, 2011, plaintiff Daniel J. Frangis filed a pro se law suit in the Small Claims Division of the Lake Superior Court in Crown Point, Indiana, against the United States Post Office and Elizabeth Gamble, the manager of the Merrillville, Indiana, post office. (DE # 1.) The United States was later substituted as the sole defendant in this case in place of the United States Post Office and Gamble. (DE # 3.)1 In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he fell on ice that defendant failed to properly clear from the entryway to the Merrillville post office, which resulted in injuries, lost wages, and medical expenses. (Id.)

Defendant removed the case to this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which provides that a civil action commenced in a state court against "[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer" may be removed by the defendant "to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending." (DE # 2.) Defendant has now moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that because the state court in which plaintiff originally filed lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim, this court also lacks jurisdiction. (DE # 8.) In response, plaintiff filed a pro se letter addressed to the undersigned, in which plaintiff states that he only filed his case in state court because "a federal lawyer" advised him to do so. (DE # 11.)

Defendant's argument has two parts. First, defendant argues that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims like plaintiff's. Defendant is correct. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, United States District Courts "have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States for money damages . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of the United States and its agencies and employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 2679. Thus, only a federal district court, not the state court in which plaintiff first filed this lawsuit, may possess proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim.

Second, defendant argues that, upon removal, this court only acquired the jurisdiction possessed by the court of origination — in this case, no jurisdiction at all. Defendant is again correct. The United States Supreme Court has held that "if the state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, the federal court acquires none upon removal, even though the federal court would have had jurisdiction if the suit had originated there." Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 243 n.17 (1981); see also Edwards v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 43 F.3d 312, 316 (7th Cir. 1994); Reid v. United States, 715 F.2d 1148, 1153 (7th Cir. 1983). In other words, because the state court in which this case originated never had jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim to begin with, this court, which acquired this case through removal, also lacks jurisdiction. The fact that defendant was advised by an attorney to file in federal court does not change the fact that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claim.

In sum, defendant's arguments are sound and warrant dismissal. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (DE # 8) is GRANTED. There being no claims remaining against any defendants in this case, the clerk is directed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT as follows:

SO ORDERED.