Weinreich
Weinreich v. Environmental Protection Agency
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Kurt Weinreich appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 , challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) issuance of a Stop Sale, Use, or *335 Removal Order (“SSURO”) for production of an unregistered pesticide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that the EPA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment was supported by the record. See 7 U.S.C. § 136k(a); Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1297 (9th Cir.1992); see also Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that unopposed motion for summary judgment met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). Furthermore, we do not reach Weinreich’s specific contentions regarding errors in summary judgment or in the administrative record because he failed to present them to the district court. See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair, Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1992).
The district court properly struck Weinreich’s motion to void judgment because at the…