The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0921n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 20, 2006 No. 06-3156 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT McCL AI N’S MARKET, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt, v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Def endant- Appellee . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Before: SUTTON and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and COHN, DistrictJudge. * AVERN COHN, Distr ict Judge . This is a case under the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011. Plaintiff-Appellant McClain’s Ma rket (Mc Clain’s) soug ht judicial reviewof an a dminist rative decision of the F ood and Nutrition Service (F NS) disqualifying it fr om participatingin the Food Stamp Progra

m. The district court grante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the g overnme nt. Mc Cla in’ s a

pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m. I. McClain’s is a fa

mily owned a nd operated business that was lice nsed to participate in the F o o d S t amp P r o g r ami n1 9 9 7 . M c C l a i n ’ s i s o w n e d b y P am e l a

H u b b ar d ( H u b b ar d ) . In F e b r

u ar y,For example, a household made an EB T transa ction at 8:10.37 for $22.17. F ifty -four 1 (54) se conds later , a sec ond household made a transac tion for $95.76. Eig hty -nine (89) seconds later, a third household spent $71.82. For example, one household made five sepa rate purcha ses within a sing le hour for 2 $79.80, $75.81, $3.70, $7.00, and $71.20. For example, there w as a r edemption for $287.28. 3 2 20 03 , M c Cla in’ s b e c ame a uth or ize d to pa

rt ic ipate in t

he Wome n, Inf

ants , a nd Chi ldr e n p ro g ra

m. In August, 2003, FNS Prog ram Spec ialist Mary Gra f (Spec ialist Graf) rec eived a ref err al that McClain’s was pa

ying c ash to customers f

or food stamp be nefits. Specialist Gra f conduc ted a re view of the elec tronic bene fit transac tion (EBT) data, a nd conclude d that there wer e suspec t fo od sta mp r e de mpt ion s o c c ur

ri ngat Mc Cla in’ s. F ur

the r r e vie w i nd ic ate d th at be tw e e n Augus t 1, 2003, and January

31, 2004, there was sig nificant unusual EB T ac tivity at McClain’s. Specialist Graf

visited McClain’s to determine if the store’s inventor y and phy sical layout was capa ble of supportingthe amount and ty pe of sa les ref

lected in the E BT data. She observe d that the store wa s small with only two short aisles not capa ble of a ccommodatingshopping c arts. The store sold ca

nned and pa ckag ed foods, a s well as snac k foods. The store did not sell fresh or frozen meats, frozen fruits or ve g etables, or meats or c heese s by

the pound. Specialist Graf

identified three ty

pes of suspicious ac tivity in the EBT data. F irst, there wer e ninetee n (19) instanc es of lar g e withdra wals by two or more house holds within an unu s u al l y s h o rtt i m e. S ec o n d , th er e w er e s ev en ty -f i v e ( 7 5 ) i n s t an ce s o f m u l t i p l e l ar ge 1 withdrawa ls by

single households within an unusually short period of time. Third, there wer e 2 fifty -five ( 55) other e x cessively larg e withdra

wals. The national aver ag e food stamp tra nsaction 33

at a c onvenienc e store is a pproxi mately

$6.00. Ba sed upon this suspicious activity , the FN S charg ed McClain’s with tra ffickingin food stamps. McClain’s responde d to the char g es ora lly and in writing , stating that it spent $348,744.00 to stock the store be tween January , 2003, and Mar ch, 2004. Specia list Graf noted that at least 47% of

this amount was for a lcohol purcha ses from distributers, a nd that alcohol cannot leg ally

be purc hased w ith food stamps. McClain’s expense repor t showed that $1 17 ,6 91 .0 0 w a s u se d to buy g ro c e ri e s f

ro m di str ibute rs , b ut a

signif ic ant a mou nt o f t his wo uld g o to non-food stamp elig ible items. After a hea ring , FNS per

manently disqualified McClain’s fr om the Food Stamp Prog ram. Mc Cla in’ s a

pp e a l to the Di re c tor

of the Ad min ist rativ e B ra nc h o f t he F NS w a s r e

je c te d in October , 2004. On Octobe r 8, 2004, McClain’s filed a complaint in fede ral district cour t, appea ling the administrative dec ision that disqualified it from participation in the Food Stamp Prog ram. On November

4, 2005, the district court g rante d the g overnme nt’s motion for summary judgme nt. McClain’s timely

appea led. II. A. We r e vie w a

g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo . Ho llo way v . B ru sh , 220 F.3d 767, 772 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) . Summa

ry jud g me nt i s p ro pe r “ if

the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs toMcClain’s brief err oneously

ref ers to Hubba

rd’s “ deposition.” Howe ver, the re is no 4 deposition in the recor d. 4 interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no g e nu ine iss ue a s to any

mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Ther e is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t when “the rec ord take n as a whole could not lead a rational trier

of fa ct to find for the non-moving party .” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). B . McClain’s ar g ues that the district cour t erre d when it found that ther e wa s no g enuine i s s u e o f m at e r i a l f

a c tr e g ar d i n gw h e th e r

i te n g a g e d

i nf o o d s t amp tr a f

f i c k i n g . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, McClain’s say s that Hubbard’ s aff idavit and her

written re sponses to FNS show that the store ’s 4 e nr oll me nt i n WI C le d to a dr amatic inc re a se in s a le s w hic h in tur n le d to the unus ua l E B T d ata that FNS obser

ved. The F ood Stamp Progra

m require s permane nt disqualification on “the f irst occa sion or any su bs e qu e nt o c c a sio n o f a

dis qu a lif ic atio n b a se d o n th e purc ha se of c ou po ns or tr a ff ic kin gin coupons or a

uthorization cards by

a re tail food store.” 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)( B) . To survive summary judgme nt, a plaintiff in a F ood Stamp Progra m disqualification case must raise mater ial issues of fa ct as to each alleg ed violation. Kahin v. United States , 101 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1303 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (e mphasis added) . McClain’s only

evidenc e is Hubbar d’s af fidavit and he r written a

nd oral stateme nts. Her5

a ff ida vit state s th at: ( 1) the inc re a se d c us tom e r t ra ff ic at Mc Cla in’ s w a s d

ue to p art ic ipatio n in WI C and the closingof a numbe r of c ompeting store s, (2) the store layout is not i ndicative of the signific ant incre ase in c ustomers, (3) the incre ased c ustomer traf fic ne cessitated a

n additional chec kout lane and a

plan for f urther e x pansion, and (4) McClain’s had pa id local vendor s $348,743.64. Hubbar d, howeve r, does not dire ctly explain any

of the 149 unusual tra

nsactions noted by FNS, any one of which is sufficient to esta blish a violation. Rather, Hubbar d offe rs only g ener al justifications for larg e expenditures at Mc Clain’s. Furthe r, McClain’s doe s not dispute that at least 47% of

the $348,743.64 was use d to purcha se alc ohol from distributors. Food stamps cannot be used to purcha se alc ohol. As c are fu lly

e xpla ine d in

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s tho ro ug h o pin ion , M c Cla in’ s h a s f a ile d to show a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t exi sts as to the numerous alleg ed violations. Hubbard’ s evidenc e fa lls short. McClain’s has simply offe red no e vidence to expl ain the volume, fre quency , or size of the transa ctions identified by the g overnme nt. In the abse nce of any evidenc e to re but the g overnme nt’s substantial evidence of illeg al ac tivity , the district court pr op e rl y g ra nte d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n f or summa ry jud g me nt. III . For the re asons stated a

bove, the de cision of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.