text: "Because the Third Amended Complaints do not contain sufficient facts to state claims for relief that are plausible on their face, the Complaints are dismissed with prejudice"  
  
  Okay, bottom line, McShane placed himself in the position of determiner of fact, a position reserved to a jury of peers.  Of course McShane spruced it up to say that facts "plausible on their face."  By this he means that facts presented taken as true fail to substantiate claims for relief.  But that is just an opinion and interpretation of the facts.  Bad judge.