De Cuir v. Los Angeles County

Ninth Circuit

De Cuir v. Los Angeles County

7 F. App'x 727

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 2, 2001·No. No. 00-55827; D.C. No. CV-99-12382-NMM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM²

Emille V. De Cuir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action with prejudice for failure to file within the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon our de novo review of the materials submitted by both parties, we affirm the district court’s determination that De Cuir’s federal complaint was not filed within the statute of limitations and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760-61 (9th Cir.1991); Ervin v. Los Angeles County, 848 F.2d 1018, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM²

Emille V. De Cuir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action with prejudice for failure to file within the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon our de novo review of the materials submitted by both parties, we affirm the district court’s determination that De Cuir’s federal complaint was not filed within the statute of limitations and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760-61 (9th Cir.1991); Ervin v. Los Angeles County, 848 F.2d 1018, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

De Cuir v. Los Angeles County, 7 F. App'x 727 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

7 F. App'x 727 (De Cuir v. Los Angeles County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related