Rocha
Rocha v. Antonovich
36 F. App'x 260
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 15, 2002No. 00-57059; D.C. No. CV-00-04989-AHMCalifornia71 words
Lead Opinion
ORDER
Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, see Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.