Case ID: f-appx_32/html/0430-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael CORNWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-55495.
    D.C. No. CV-00-06797-CM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    March 11, 2002.
    
    Decided March 21, 2002.
    Before CANBY, BEEZER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Cornwell appeals the summary judgment for defendants in his action, which alleged procedural due process violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a summary judgment, Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025,1028 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Cornwell’s contentions that the district court erred by granting summary judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration lack merit because the Department of Education’s procedures adequately afforded Cornwell due process. See Foss v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 161 F.3d 584, 589-90 (9th Cir.1998).

To the extent Cornwell contends he is entitled to injunctive relief, his contention lacks merit because he may not seek injunctive relief. See 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2); Am. Ass’n of Cosmetology Sch. v. Riley, 170 F.Sd 1250,1254 (9th Cir.1999).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.