McGee v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

McGee v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

63 F. App'x 409

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 20, 2003·No. Nos. 02-55715, 02-55861, 02-56449; D.C. No. CV-00-07964-TJH·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Terrill McGee appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of McDonald’s Restaurants of California and Ralph’s Grocery Company, in his action alleging, among other things, that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (“RICO”) by participating in a scheme to physically disable McGee by serving him tainted fast food that would induce internal bleeding, and thereby interfere with the development and marketing of McGee’s patented eyewash helmet. McGee separately appealed ¹ the district court’s denial of reconsideration, and rejection of McGee’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo, Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296, 1300 (9th Cir.1996), denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1987), and the existence of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, Acura of Bellevue v. Reich, 90 F.3d 1403, 1405-06 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

Because the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to McGee shows there are no genuine issues of material fact, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See Pedrina, 97 F.3d at 1300-01.

Because McGee failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reconsider. See School Dist. No. 1J, (Multnomah County) v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction over McGee’s motion for sanctions because the motion related to issues pending before this court in McGee’s appeal from summary judgment. See United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989).

McGee’s requests to supplement the record with additional evidence, for judicial notice, and for appointment of experts, are denied.

McGee’s motion to submit an oversized brief is granted, and the clerk is ordered to file McGee’s supplemental reply brief received on April 25, 2003.

[410]*410We reject McGee’s remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Terrill McGee appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of McDonald’s Restaurants of California and Ralph’s Grocery Company, in his action alleging, among other things, that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (“RICO”) by participating in a scheme to physically disable McGee by serving him tainted fast food that would induce internal bleeding, and thereby interfere with the development and marketing of McGee’s patented eyewash helmet. McGee separately appealed ¹ the district court’s denial of reconsideration, and rejection of McGee’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo, Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296, 1300 (9th Cir.1996), denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1987), and the existence of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, Acura of Bellevue v. Reich, 90 F.3d 1403, 1405-06 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

Because the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to McGee shows there are no genuine issues of material fact, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See Pedrina, 97 F.3d at 1300-01.

Because McGee failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reconsider. See School Dist. No. 1J, (Multnomah County) v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction over McGee’s motion for sanctions because the motion related to issues pending before this court in McGee’s appeal from summary judgment. See United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989).

McGee’s requests to supplement the record with additional evidence, for judicial notice, and for appointment of experts, are denied.

McGee’s motion to submit an oversized brief is granted, and the clerk is ordered to file McGee’s supplemental reply brief received on April 25, 2003.

[410]*410We reject McGee’s remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

McGee v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., 63 F. App'x 409 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

63 F. App'x 409 (McGee v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related