Mason v. Thompson

Ninth Circuit

Mason v. Thompson

7 F. App'x 587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

DocketNo. 99-16746; D.C. No. CV-97-20686-JF/PVT

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F. App'x 587 (Mason v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mason v. Thompson, 7 F. App'x 587 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM⁴

Paul W. Mason appeals pro se the district court’s judgment for defendants in his action alleging that the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) failure to combat dietary magnesium deficiency results in up to 150,000 deaths per year and minimal sales of Mason’s magnesium-rich spring water. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Mason’s fifth claim for relief because the FDA reasonably interpreted “amount customarily consumed” to mean amount “consumed per eating occasion.” See Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Clarke, 57 F.3d 1517, 1525 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court properly dismissed Mason’s remaining claims for relief because FDA decisions not to take enforcement action are not subject to judicial review. See Hackler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985).

The record contains no evidence of bias on the part of the district court judge. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1.44, 455; United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1992).

Mason’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM⁴

Paul W. Mason appeals pro se the district court’s judgment for defendants in his action alleging that the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) failure to combat dietary magnesium deficiency results in up to 150,000 deaths per year and minimal sales of Mason’s magnesium-rich spring water. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Mason’s fifth claim for relief because the FDA reasonably interpreted “amount customarily consumed” to mean amount “consumed per eating occasion.” See Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Clarke, 57 F.3d 1517, 1525 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court properly dismissed Mason’s remaining claims for relief because FDA decisions not to take enforcement action are not subject to judicial review. See Hackler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985).

The record contains no evidence of bias on the part of the district court judge. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1.44, 455; United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1992).

Mason’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. App'x 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-thompson-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack