Donaghe v. Ashcroft

Full title: Sam W. DONAGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, [*] Attorney…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 30, 2001

17 F. App'x 711 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

17 Fed.Appx. 711 (9th Cir. 2001) Sam W. DONAGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, ^* Attorney General; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-35072. D.C. No. CV-00-05609-FDB. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 30, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001. ^**

** 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, 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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Sam W. Donaghe appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in his Bivens action alleging that the Attorney General failed to supervise or train a district court judge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130

Page 712.

(9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge's report and recommendation entered on November 27, 2000, and adopted by the district court's order entered on January 9, 2001.

AFFIRMED.