Barbara Stuart Robinson v. City of Phoenix

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA STUART ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-15269
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00651-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James F. Metcalf, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 26, 2024***
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process and state
law claims arising out of an injury that occurred on city property. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 2 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15269
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wallis v. Princess
Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City deprived her
of any right secured by federal law without due process. See Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (setting forth requirements for procedural due process);
see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (“We conclude that the Due
Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing
unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --