From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roush v. Lemke

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 22, 2008
286 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-35965.

Submitted July 14, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 22, 2008.

Cheryl A. Zakrzewski, Esq., John H. Ridge, Esq., Bellevue City Attorney's Office, Bellevue, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01055-TSZ.

Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Appellant's motion to file the supplemental response received on June 25, 2008 is granted. Appellees' motion to strike the supplemental response is denied. The Clerk shall file the response.

A review of the record and the response to this court's order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review for summary judgment).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.

Appellees' motion for fees and costs incurred in moving to strike the supplemental response is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Roush v. Lemke

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 22, 2008
286 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Roush v. Lemke

Case Details

Full title:D. Earl ROUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebecca LEMKE, Police Support…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 22, 2008

Citations

286 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Ribo v. City of Uhrichsville

The present effects of a single past action do not trigger a continuing-violations exception to the statute…

Stamper v. City of Richmond Heights

The present effects of a single past action do not trigger a continuing-violations exception to the statute…