Summary
dismissing prisoner's complaint alleging Access SecurePak failed to timely deliver food because they were not acting under color of state law
Summary of this case from Stephens v. Access Secure Pak Remington Returns Ctr.Opinion
No. 08-15228.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 13, 2008.
Ernest Miller, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-01538-FCD.
Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.