Opinion
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2004.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Thad M. Guyer, Esq., T.M. Guyer & Friends, Medford, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Bruce L. Mowery, Esq., Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-03086-ALA/JPC.
Before: TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge.
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Weaver and Podlech have pointed to no authority showing that any of the conduct to which they object violates the First Amendment, and the Title VII "hostile environment" cases to which they cite are not analogous and do not support their claim. In addition, the district court's
See Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 831 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir.1987) (affirming summary judgment because appellant's novel argument was unsupported); Shell Oil Co. v. Train, 585 F.2d 408, 413 (9th Cir.1978) (rejecting appellant's novel theory as unsupported by any authority).
Page 334.
grant of qualified immunity to the defendant officials was appropriate since the officials violated no clearly-established rights.
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
AFFIRMED.