From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atanasoff v. Town of Fountain Hills

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 22, 2005
135 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted June 14, 2005.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Ljubomir Atanasoff, Fountain Hills, AZ, pro se.

C. Brad Woodford, Moyes Storey, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Ljubomir Atanasoff appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officials of Fountain Hills, Arizona violated his constitutional rights by denying a building permit in 1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Atanasoff's action because his claims are time-barred. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-542(1) (establishing two year statute of limitations); De Luna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 315 (9th Cir.1988).

Atanasoff's remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny appellees' request for sanctions without prejudice to the filing of a separate motion pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 and 9th Cir. Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Atanasoff v. Town of Fountain Hills

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 22, 2005
135 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Atanasoff v. Town of Fountain Hills

Case Details

Full title:Ljubomir ATANASOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, a…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 22, 2005

Citations

135 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2005)