White v. Smith

Ninth Circuit

White v. Smith

32 F. App'x 381

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2002

DocketNo. 01-16327; D.C. No. CV-95-05169-AWI

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 381 (White v. Smith) 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

White v. Smith, 32 F. App'x 381 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ricky White, a California state prisoner at all times relevant to this appeal, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Because White is not entitled to oral argument on his summary judgment motion and the district court reviewed de novo the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we reject White’s contention that the district court’s failure to provide him a hearing violated White’s due process rights. See Fed.R.CivP. 72; Jasinski v. Showboat Operating Co., 644 F.2d 1277, 1280 n. 4 (9th Cir.1981).

AFFIRMED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Ricky White, a California state prisoner at all times relevant to this appeal, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Because White is not entitled to oral argument on his summary judgment motion and the district court reviewed de novo the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we reject White’s contention that the district court’s failure to provide him a hearing violated White’s due process rights. See Fed.R.CivP. 72; Jasinski v. Showboat Operating Co., 644 F.2d 1277, 1280 n. 4 (9th Cir.1981).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-smith-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack