United States Ex Rel. U.S. General Services Administration v. McMackin

Ninth Circuit

United States Ex Rel. U.S. General Services Administration v. McMackin

471 F. App'x 794

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 2012

Docket10-35734

StatusUnpublished

This text of 471 F. App'x 794 (United States Ex Rel. U.S. General Services Administration v. McMackin) 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

United States Ex Rel. U.S. General Services Administration v. McMackin, 471 F. App'x 794 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Tom MeMackin appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action brought against MeMackin by the United States on behalf of the General Services Administration (“GSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Togu *795 chi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because McMackin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to GSA’s right to damages and the amount of damages owed. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (setting forth summary judgment standard); Sprincin King St. Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 84 Wash.App. 56, 925 P.2d 217, 221-23 (1996) (discussing Washington unlawful detainer law and noting that commercial tenant’s allegations of breach by landlord did not excuse failure to pay rent).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McMackin’s motion to compel discovery of documents that he had previously requested from GSA under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) because McMackin did not demonstrate that he sought these documents through discovery. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (district court’s discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Moreover, McMackin neither asserted a FOIA claim, nor showed that he exhausted his administrative remedies under FOIA. See United States v. Steele (In re Steele), 799 F.2d 461, 465-66 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies required under FOIA before seeking judicial review deprives district court of jurisdiction).

McMackin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tom MeMackin appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action brought against MeMackin by the United States on behalf of the General Services Administration (“GSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Togu *795 chi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because McMackin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to GSA’s right to damages and the amount of damages owed. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (setting forth summary judgment standard); Sprincin King St. Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 84 Wash.App. 56, 925 P.2d 217, 221-23 (1996) (discussing Washington unlawful detainer law and noting that commercial tenant’s allegations of breach by landlord did not excuse failure to pay rent).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McMackin’s motion to compel discovery of documents that he had previously requested from GSA under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) because McMackin did not demonstrate that he sought these documents through discovery. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (district court’s discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Moreover, McMackin neither asserted a FOIA claim, nor showed that he exhausted his administrative remedies under FOIA. See United States v. Steele (In re Steele), 799 F.2d 461, 465-66 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies required under FOIA before seeking judicial review deprives district court of jurisdiction).

McMackin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 F. App'x 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-us-general-services-administration-v-mcmackin-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack