Finander

Finander v. Moreno Valley Unified District

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 28, 202523-3204California420 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLENE FINANDER, No. 23-3204 D.C. No. 5:23-cv-00774-JGB-SP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED

DISTRICT; DOES, I - X,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Marlene Finander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.