David Matlean v. Ronald Pierini ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID MATLEAN,                                   No. 10-16558
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00063-LRH-
    VPC
    v.
    RONALD P. PIERINI; et al.,                       MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 27, 2011 **
    Before:        HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    David Matlean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action arising out of a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 
    623 F.3d 975
    , 978 (9th
    Cir. 2010) (summary judgment); Cholla Ready Mix., Inc. v. Civish, 
    382 F.3d 969
    ,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Matlean’s claims against the State of
    Nevada under the Eleventh Amendment. See O’Connor v. Nevada, 
    686 F.2d 749
    ,
    750 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit against a
    state without its consent).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matlean’s claims
    against the remaining defendants because Matlean failed to raise a genuine dispute
    of material fact as to whether defendants violated his constitutional rights by
    allegedly failing to obtain certain bonds required by Nevada law. See Villegas v.
    City of Gilroy, 
    484 F.3d 1136
    , 1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (under § 1983, the plaintiff
    must show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution); see
    also 
    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 282.163
     (“A blanket fidelity bond or blanket position bond
    may be furnished at county expense for all elected officers except the county
    treasurer.”).
    Matlean’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       10-16558
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-16558

Judges: Hawkins, Silverman, Fletcher

Filed Date: 10/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024