Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al.

E.D. California

Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al.

DecidedSeptember 16, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00704

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al. (Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JERRY DUANE MCGEE, II, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00704-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 14 MADERA TOYOTA, CHEVERLET, et al., Doc. 5 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (“FCA”). The 20 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On June 16, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued 23 findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a 24 claim. Doc. 5. Specifically, the findings and recommendations note that plaintiff, proceeding pro 25 se, is prohibited from prosecuting FCA qui tam actions without retaining counsel. See Stoner v. 26 Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). And in any event, 27 plaintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations of fraud to state a cognizable FCA claim. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 1 | objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. /d. at 7. Plaintiff has not filed 2 || objections and the time to do so has expired. 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 4 | this case. After carefully reviewing the file, the Court finds that the findings and 5 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 16, 2025, Doc. 5, are ADOPTED in 8 full; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ September 15, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JERRY DUANE MCGEE, II, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00704-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 14 MADERA TOYOTA, CHEVERLET, et al., Doc. 5 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (“FCA”). The 20 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On June 16, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued 23 findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a 24 claim. Doc. 5. Specifically, the findings and recommendations note that plaintiff, proceeding pro 25 se, is prohibited from prosecuting FCA qui tam actions without retaining counsel. See Stoner v. 26 Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). And in any event, 27 plaintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations of fraud to state a cognizable FCA claim. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 1 | objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. /d. at 7. Plaintiff has not filed 2 || objections and the time to do so has expired. 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 4 | this case. After carefully reviewing the file, the Court finds that the findings and 5 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 16, 2025, Doc. 5, are ADOPTED in 8 full; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ September 15, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Jerry Duane McGee, II v. Madera Toyota, Chevrolet, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-jerry-duane-mcgee-ii-v-madera-toyota-chevrolet-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack