Reginald Bell, Sr. v. City of Fife

MEMORANDUM

Reginald Bell, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. Although the district court’s order dismissed the “complaint” rather than the “action,” we interpret it as dismissing the action because the order adopts the report and recommendation in which the magistrate judge determines that further amendment of the complaint would be futile and recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice. In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.2001). We therefore have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bell’s action because Bell alleged only con-clusory allegations of wrongdoing in his amended complaint and failed to attribute specific wrongful conduct to any individual defendant. See Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1010-11 (9th Cir.2011) (a civil complaint…