UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. KENNETH P. BROOKS v. Whitaker, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1522
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. KENNETH P.
BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; LOCKHEED MARTIN
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; LOCKHEED MARTIN
UTILITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(8:00-cv-01088-BEL)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kenneth P. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn V. Whitaker, VORYS,
SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

*Brooks was represented by counsel in district court but is
pursuing his appeal pro se.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth P. Brooks, a pro se litigant, appeals from the
district court’s order dismissing his False Claims Act complaint.
Lockheed Martin has moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that
Brooks cannot pursue his action pro se. * We grant the motion in
part and dismiss the qui tam claims. We affirm the district
court’s dismissal of Brooks’ retaliation claim.
A lay person may not bring a qui tam action under the
False Claims Act. See United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d
773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004). Although a qui tam relator is
entitled by statute to a share of the recovery if his action is
successful, see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (2000), the United States is
the real party in interest, and the need for adequate legal
representation on behalf of the United States counsels against
permitting pro se suits. See United States ex rel. Milam v. Univ.
of Tex., 961 F.2d 46, 50 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we grant
Lockheed Martin’s motion in part and dismiss Brooks’ qui tam
claims.
With regard to Brooks’ claim of retaliatory discharge
under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (2000), such a claim may be brought pro
se, because it is not a claim on behalf of the Government.
However, our review of the record shows that this claim was

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
untimely filed. Thus, we affirm the dismissal of this claim for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States ex rel.
Brooks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 8:00-cv-01088-BEL (D. Md.
Mar. 27, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --