Stevens Lawrence Hart v. David Allen, and Jefferson County Fair Board Floyd C. Bauer Lowell Patterson Pete McCabe Patti Bender Peggy Boyle

Ninth Circuit

Stevens Lawrence Hart v. David Allen, and Jefferson County Fair Board Floyd C. Bauer Lowell Patterson Pete McCabe Patti Bender Peggy Boyle

112 F.3d 516, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14549, 1997 WL 206003

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1997

Docket96-35239

StatusUnpublished

This text of 112 F.3d 516 (Stevens Lawrence Hart v. David Allen, and Jefferson County Fair Board Floyd C. Bauer Lowell Patterson Pete McCabe Patti Bender Peggy Boyle) 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

Stevens Lawrence Hart v. David Allen, and Jefferson County Fair Board Floyd C. Bauer Lowell Patterson Pete McCabe Patti Bender Peggy Boyle, 112 F.3d 516, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14549, 1997 WL 206003 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

112 F.3d 516

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Stevens Lawrence HART, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Jefferson County Fair Board; Floyd C. Bauer; Lowell
Patterson; Pete McCabe; Patti Bender; Peggy
Boyle, Defendants.

No. 96-35239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1997.*
Decided April 24, 1997.

Before BROWNING, THOMPSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Stevens Lawrence Hart appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant David Allen in Hart's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the district court's denial of Hart's motion to recuse Judge Frye. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Monaco, 852 F.2d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.1988).

We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Allen for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order filed on September 25, 1995.

We decline to address Hart's contention regarding his conviction under the Oregon statute because the district judge based her order wholly on defendant Allen's immunity, and did not address Hart's conviction under the Oregon statute.

We affirm the denial of Hart's motion to recuse Judge Frye for the reasons stated in Judge Marsh's order filed on April 14, 1995.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

112 F.3d 516

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Stevens Lawrence HART, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Jefferson County Fair Board; Floyd C. Bauer; Lowell
Patterson; Pete McCabe; Patti Bender; Peggy
Boyle, Defendants.

No. 96-35239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1997.*
Decided April 24, 1997.

Before BROWNING, THOMPSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Stevens Lawrence Hart appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant David Allen in Hart's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the district court's denial of Hart's motion to recuse Judge Frye. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Monaco, 852 F.2d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.1988).

We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Allen for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order filed on September 25, 1995.

We decline to address Hart's contention regarding his conviction under the Oregon statute because the district judge based her order wholly on defendant Allen's immunity, and did not address Hart's conviction under the Oregon statute.

We affirm the denial of Hart's motion to recuse Judge Frye for the reasons stated in Judge Marsh's order filed on April 14, 1995.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F.3d 516, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14549, 1997 WL 206003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-lawrence-hart-v-david-allen-and-jefferson--ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack