David Matlean v. Ronald P. Pierini;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID MATLEAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RONALD P. PIERINI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16558
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00063-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
David Matlean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th
Cir. 2010) (summary judgment); Cholla Ready Mix., Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969,
FILED
OCT 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16558 2
973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Matlean’s claims against the State of
Nevada under the Eleventh Amendment. See O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749,
750 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit against a
state without its consent).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matlean’s claims
against the remaining defendants because Matlean failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether defendants violated his constitutional rights by
allegedly failing to obtain certain bonds required by Nevada law. See Villegas v.
City of Gilroy, 484 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (under § 1983, the plaintiff
must show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution); see
also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 282.163 (“A blanket fidelity bond or blanket position bond
may be furnished at county expense for all elected officers except the county
treasurer.”).
Matlean’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --