James Lockhart v. William Reed Stephen E. Paul Defense Contract Audit Agency

56 F.3d 72 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James LOCKHART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William REED; Stephen E. Paul; Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-56179. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 16, 1995. * Decided May 19, 1995. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Lockhart appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Lockhart contends that the district court erred by: (1) dismissing his complaint; and (2) denying his application for a temporary restraining order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 In his complaint, Lockhart, who was employed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA") for approximately five years, alleged that the DCAA and his DCAA supervisors removed him from his position as auditor in violation of various amendments to the United States…