George M. Harvey v. Novo Communications, Inc., Dba Bonded Services and the Hartford Insurance Group

942 F.2d 791 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. George M. HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., dba Bonded Services and the Hartford Insurance Group, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-56327. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 11, 1991. * Decided Aug. 21, 1991. 1 Before REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 George M. Harvey appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). This court reviews the district court's findings of fact for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo when reviewing a dismissal under Rule 41(b). Sepulveda v. Pacific Maritime Assn., 878 F.2d 1137, 1139 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 561 (1989). 4 Harvey argues that the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prove the facts necessary to support his claims for relief under ERISA ( 29 U.S.C. § 1132 ), and the…