(PS) McGee v. Airport Little League Baseball Inc. et al

Filing 82

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/19/23 ADOPTING in full 72 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 47 defendant Enrique Hernandez' motion to dismiss. Defendants City of Sacramento and Howard Chan's 49 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff's 76 motion to amend and 77 motion for a temporary restraining are DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFERSON A. MCGEE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:21-cv-01654-DAD-DB

Plaintiff,
v.
AIRPORT LITTLE LEAGUE
BASEBALL INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION
(Doc. Nos. 47, 49, 50, 72, 76, 77)

Plaintiff Jefferson A. McGee, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on September

18

14, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 7, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc.

22

Nos. 47, 49, 50) be granted and that this action be dismissed without leave to amend because

23

granting plaintiff further leave to amend his complaint would be futile. (Doc. No. 72.) In

24

particular, the magistrate judge found that, despite the court’s guidance regarding the applicable

25

legal standards and plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies (which the court explained in its order

26

granting defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint), plaintiff’s second

27

amended complaint was “simply a longer version of the [first] amended complaint, consisting of

28

vague and conclusory allegations,” and “devoid of any factual allegations” to support his
1

1

allegations of racial discrimination. (Id. at 4–5.) The findings and recommendations were served

2

on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen

3

(14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) On February 21, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the

4

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 73.) None of the defendants filed objections of their

5

own, but on March 1, 2023, defendants Howard Chan and the City of Sacramento filed a response

6

to plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. No. 74.)

7

In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the deficiencies identified in the

8

findings and recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely restates the applicable legal standards for

9

each of his causes of action and then states in conclusory fashion that he has “allege[d] enough

10

factual content to state a claim.” (Doc. No. 73 at 10–17.) Plaintiff does not, however, point to

11

any specific facts alleged in his second amended complaint that he contends supports his claims,

12

nor does he proffer any additional factual allegations that he would include if granted leave to

13

further amend his complaint. The undersigned therefore concludes that plaintiff’s objections

14

provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. In addition,

15

although plaintiff has attached to his objections a proposed third amended complaint in which he

16

seeks over one billion dollars in damages, that proposed complaint does not allege facts sufficient

17

to cure the deficiencies identified in the pending findings and recommendations. Thus, the

18

undersigned agrees that the granting of further leave to amend would be futile.

19

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

20

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

21

objections and defendants’ response thereto, the court concludes that the findings and

22

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

23

Accordingly,

24

1.

25

adopted in full;

26

2.

27
28

The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2023 (Doc. No. 72) are

The motion to dismiss filed by defendant Enrique Hernandez (Doc. No. 47) is
granted;

/////
2

1

3.

2

The motion to dismiss filed by defendants City of Sacramento and Howard Chan
(Doc. No. 49) is granted;

3

4.

4

The motion to dismiss filed by defendant Little League Baseball, Inc. (Doc. No.
50) is granted;

5

5.

This action is dismissed;

6

6.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 76) and motion for a temporary restraining

7

order (Doc. No. 77) are denied as having been rendered moot by this order; and

8

7.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

May 19, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3