Cloninger
Cloninger v. Porter
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
James Franklin Cloninger (“Cloninger”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on four 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in favor of defendants Vergus Porter, Jr. (“Porter”), William Mike Patterson (“Patterson”), and Clark County, Nevada, and the court’s grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of Porter and Patterson on the § 1983 claims for which they are sued in their individual capacities. Cloninger further appeals the district court’s discretionary decision not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over his three state law tort claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment and decision regarding qualified immunity de novo. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002). We review a district court’s decision whether to retain jurisdiction over supplemental claims when the original federal claims are dismissed for an abuse of discretion. See Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.2002). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not detail them here.