(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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?