Martin Hobart Stanwood v. Herbert J. Royster

81 F.3d 170 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Martin Hobart STANWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert J. ROYSTER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-35048. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 14, 1996. * Decided March 25, 1996. Before: CHOY, SNEED, and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Martin Hobart Stanwood appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Oregon State Police Officer Herbert J. Royster. Stanwood argues that the district court erred by (1) construing his Bivens action as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, (2) granting summary judgment against Stanwood's claims as to the preparation and execution of the search warrant, and the return of non-contraband property because the statute of limitation period had run, and (3) granting summary judgment against Stanwood's claim as to the affidavit in support of civil forfeiture proceedings. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background 3 Royster is an Oregon…