Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. McCARTY, CASE NO. CV F 06-0526 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

ROBERT M. GRGURIC,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John L. McCarty (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on May 2,

2006, filed his original complaint against Florida attorneyRobert M. Grguric (“Mr. Grguric”) to attempt

to allege state law tort claims, including legal malpractice. The magistrate judge issued his May 3, 2006

order to dismiss the original complaint on grounds that it: (1) failed to establish this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric; (2) failed to allege a cognizable cause

of action against Mr. Grguric; (3) was susceptible to limitations defenses; and (4) appeared designed to

vex Mr. Grguric. 

In response to the order to dismiss, plaintiff filed on May 12, 2006 his “First Amended

Complaint: Seeking Relief From Voidable Judgment & Orders Procured with Abuse of Process,

Extrinsic Fraud, Absence of Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter or Over the Plaintiff” (“amended

complaint”). The amended complaint names Mr. Grguric as the sole defendant. The amended complaint

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

alleges plaintiff’s income was wrongfully taken from him in Florida marital dissolution proceedings and

takes issue with Florida court orders.

The magistrate judge issued his May 16, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the amended complaint fails to establish this Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric; (2) the amended complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) a further attempt at amendment is

unwarranted based on jurisdictional defects, available defenses, and the amended complaint’s

deficiencies; and (4) the amended complaint lacks good faith and exhibits plaintiff’s intent to vex Mr.

Grguric. 

Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s May 16, 2006 findings and recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the amended complaint

fails to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction

over Mr. Grguric; (2) the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on jurisdictional

defects, available defenses, and the amended complaint’s deficiencies; and (4) the

amended complaint lacks good faith and exhibits plaintiff’s intent to vex Mr. Grguric;

and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2