United States v. Massood N. Jallali, 478 F. App'x 578

Jallali, appearing pro se, appeals a district court decision dismissing his counterclaims for negligence and negligent supervision by the government and granting summary judgment for the government in a defaulted student loan action.
The district court also denied Jallali’s discovery motions and denied his late motion to dismiss.
Jallali argued res judicata barred the action because a prior state court judgment allegedly failed to apply governing federal law.
He asserted material facts remained in dispute due to lack of supporting financial records (e.g., cancelled checks, wire transfers) showing loan disbursement on his behalf.
The government moved for summary judgment, and the district court relied on a Francisco affidavit showing disbursement of funds to Jallali.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the counterclaims were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).	Jallali contends the government owed a duty and that his rescission claim survives.	Government argues no duty exists under 20 U.S.C. § 3403(b) and claims no viable claim for rescission.	Yes; counterclaims properly dismissed.
Whether summary judgment was proper given evidence of loan disbursement.	Jallali asserts genuine facts remain in dispute due to lack of proof of disbursement.	Government presented the Francisco affidavit showing disbursement on Jallali’s behalf.	Yes; summary judgment proper.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in discovery rulings.	Jallali sought depositions but was denied access to witnesses.	Govt. contends discovery rulings were appropriate and not subject to appellate review here.	No abuse; discovery denial affirmed.
Whether Jallali’s late motion to dismiss was procedurally proper	Jallali attempted to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) after answering the complaint.	Rule 12(b)(6) motion was procedurally improper once an answer had been filed.	Procedurally improper; not considered

Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal; liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading requirements)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting; evidence standards)
Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standards and evidence review)
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009) (no jurisdiction to hear appeals from magistrates unless timely district court appeal)
Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) rulings; pleading sufficiency standards)
Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment burden on moving party)