Paul Campos v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Paul Campos v. United States

369 F. App'x 779

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2010

Docket08-16442

StatusUnpublished

This text of 369 F. App'x 779 (Paul Campos v. United States) 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

Paul Campos v. United States, 369 F. App'x 779 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

*780 Paul Lanakila Campos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his Federal Tort Claims Act action arising from a slip and fall injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bolt v. United States, 509 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Campos failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had notice of an unsafe condition or defect. See id. (“Even when the injury occurs on federal property, the finding of negligence must be based upon state law.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Harris v. State, 1 Haw.App. 554, 623 P.2d 446, 448 (Haw.1981) (explaining that negligence liability cannot be imposed where there is no actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition or defect).

We do not consider evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Campos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *780 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

*780 Paul Lanakila Campos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his Federal Tort Claims Act action arising from a slip and fall injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bolt v. United States, 509 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Campos failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had notice of an unsafe condition or defect. See id. (“Even when the injury occurs on federal property, the finding of negligence must be based upon state law.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Harris v. State, 1 Haw.App. 554, 623 P.2d 446, 448 (Haw.1981) (explaining that negligence liability cannot be imposed where there is no actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition or defect).

We do not consider evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Campos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *780 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F. App'x 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-campos-v-united-states-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack