22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T435,MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Louis Chase appeals the district court’s dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants County of San Bernardino, Deputy Gregory Teplansky, Officer Fernando Hernandez, and Deputy Chief Ed Ripley. Defendants cross-appeal the district court’s denial of sanctions. We affirm. 1. Reviewing de novo, Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir.2014), we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed this action. For the reasons explained by the district court, claim preclusion barred all claims but one, and the statute of limitations barred the remaining claim. 2. “Given the district court’s wide discretion in determining whether Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in refusing to award sanctions in this instance.” Gotro v. R & B Realty Grp., 69 F.3d 1485 , 1488-89 (9th Cir.1995). AFFIRMED. Costs on appeal awarded to Defendants. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T467,

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Louis Chase appeals the district court’s dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants County of San Bernardino, Deputy Gregory Teplansky, Officer Fernando Hernandez, and Deputy Chief Ed Ripley. Defendants cross-appeal the district court’s denial of sanctions. We affirm.

1. Reviewing de novo, Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir.2014), we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed this action. For the reasons explained by the district court, claim preclusion barred all claims but one, and the statute of limitations barred the remaining claim.

2. “Given the district court’s wide discretion in determining whether Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in refusing to award sanctions in this instance.” Gotro v. R & B Realty Grp., 69 F.3d 1485 , 1488-89 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED. Costs on appeal awarded to Defendants.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.