Ronald Payne v. Diana Marsteiner

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 26, 202221-55296California281 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD PAYNE, No. 21-55296

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-10066-JWH-KK

v.

MEMORANDUM*

DIANA MARSTEINER, Judge, Individual and official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Payne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and due process violations

stemming from workers’ compensation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* 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). Contrary to Payne’s contentions, the magistrate…

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.