Dennis McCulley v. City of Tucson

Ninth Circuit

Dennis McCulley v. City of Tucson

471 F. App'x 582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 2012

Docket10-16298

StatusUnpublished

This text of 471 F. App'x 582 (Dennis McCulley v. City of Tucson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis McCulley v. City of Tucson, 471 F. App'x 582 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis David McCulley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights when he was shot by police officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm summary judgment for defendants for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered on March 29, 2010, and adopted by the district court in its order entered on May 24, 2010.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McCulley’s motion for reconsideration, because McCulley provided no basis for reconsideration. See Barber v. State of Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994) (setting forth standard of review).

We decline to consider McCulley’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that his arrest constituted a denial of a public benefit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Peterson v. *583 Highland, Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir.1998) (noting general rule against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not developed before the district court).

McCulley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

McCulley’s letter received on January 3, 2012 is construed as a supplement to his reply brief, and has been considered.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis David McCulley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights when he was shot by police officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm summary judgment for defendants for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered on March 29, 2010, and adopted by the district court in its order entered on May 24, 2010.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McCulley’s motion for reconsideration, because McCulley provided no basis for reconsideration. See Barber v. State of Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994) (setting forth standard of review).

We decline to consider McCulley’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that his arrest constituted a denial of a public benefit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Peterson v. *583 Highland, Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir.1998) (noting general rule against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not developed before the district court).

McCulley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

McCulley’s letter received on January 3, 2012 is construed as a supplement to his reply brief, and has been considered.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Randal T. Barber, and Hawaiian Navigable Waters Preservation Society, a Non Profit Corporation and on Behalf of Its Members and All Others Similarly Situated v. State of Hawai'i United States of America, and United States of America, Hawaiian Navigable Waters Preservation Society, a Non Profit Corporation and on Behalf of Its Members and All Others Similarly Situated v. State of Hawai'i Rex Johnson, in His Capacity as Director of Hawai'i Department of Transportation

42 F.3d 1185 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc.

140 F.3d 1313 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 F. App'x 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-mcculley-v-city-of-tucson-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack