Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60009

Summary Calendar

MARVIN CLYDE MAGEE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through the Farm Service Agency,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:06-CV-541

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I.

In September 1999, Marvin Clyde Magee conveyed his 670-acre farm,

located in Smith County, Mississippi, to the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) in

satisfaction of a $686,349 debt. In 2000, Mr. Magee entered into a five-year

agreement to lease back the property from the FSA. Under the lease agreement,

he had the option to purchase the property at the end of the five-year term for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-60009

2

a price that, in accord with FSA regulations, would be determined by an

independent appraisal. 

In 2004, Mr. Magee expressed his intention to exercise the purchase

option, and a Mississippi State Certified Appraiser appraised the property at

$899,000. The FSA’s Review Appraiser confirmed the appraisal after

determining that it satisfied the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal

Practice (“USPAP”). See 7 C.F.R. § 761.7 (requiring that agency appraisals

comply with the standards contained in the USPAP). 

Contending that the appraisal was inflated, Mr. Magee took an

administrative appeal to the National Appeals Division (“NAD”) of the United

States Department of Agriculture. A hearing was then held in which he argued

that the comparable sales relied upon by the appraiser were not the best

available. He also argued that the timber on the property was valued too high

and that some of the appraiser’s calculations were incorrect. The Hearing

Officer affirmed the appraisal. Mr. Magee then exercised his right to a review

by the Director of the NAD. See 7 C.F.R. § 11.9. The Director affirmed the

Hearing Officer’s determination.

Mr. Magee then filed an action in federal court seeking review of the

appraisal, but shortly thereafter he requested that it be dismissed without

prejudice. He filed a second action, the one underlying this appeal, in

Mississippi state court. In the caption of his complaint, he listed George W.

Bush and the United States Government as defendants. The complaint

implicated all branches of the federal government and several previous

presidential administrations. All, he asserted, had conspired to defraud him of

his God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The executive

branch, he claimed, had failed to keep food prices stable and neglected its duty

to keep farmers, like himself, financially strong. The United States Congress,

he argued, aided this fraud by subsidizing mega-farms. Finally, he asserted that
No. 09-60009

3

the federal judiciary, unduly influenced by the University of Chicago Law

School, had been willing accomplices in this injustice. For these wrongs, he

sought $2,376,292 in damages and an injunction preventing the sale of the farm.

The FSA removed the action to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi. The FSA then filed a motion seeking dismissal

or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The court granted the FSA’s motion

for summary judgment. Mr. Magee now appeals.

II.

The first of his two claims sought review of the agency’s appraisal. When

federal courts review an FSA determination, we are required to apply a standard

that gives great deference to that agency’s ruling; we can set aside an FSA

determination only if it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or not in

accord with the law. Kinder Canal Co. v. Johanns, 493 F.3d 543, 547 (5th Cir.

2007) (citing the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.).

Mr. Magee bore the burden of proving that the $899,000 appraisal was

erroneous, see 7 C.F.R. § 11.8(e), yet he has offered nothing that indicates that

the appraisal must be disregarded. We, like the district court, must conclude

therefore that he has failed to show the courts that the FSA’s decision was

arbitrary or capricious.

The second claim is based upon various policies of the federal government,

which he asserts depressed his farm income. Had it not been for these policies,

he argues, he would have earned over two million dollars more than he actually

did. Here is a list of some of the policies and events that he blames for his

revenue shortfall: (1) a grain embargo placed by the United States in 1980; (2)

the entrance of millions of illegal aliens into the United States; (3) the North

American Free Trade Agreement; (4) the failure of the United States

government to adequately enforce antitrust statutes; and (5) the failure of the

Secretary of Agriculture to maintain market conditions favorable to farmers.
No. 09-60009

4

Mr. Magee’s claim for damages, based on policies of the government that

only have broad general applicability, has no merit. We therefore affirm the

district court’s grant of summary judgment. 

III.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.