Case Name: Alfredrick LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.R. HENSLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-09
Citations: 292 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 06-56110
Parties: Alfredrick LOVE, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. K.R. HENSLEY; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Alfredrick LOVE, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. K.R. HENSLEY; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
No. 06-56110.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 9, 2008.
Alfredrick Love, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Attorney General CAS, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfredrick Love, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. We dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the district court's order dismissing Love's complaint and granting leave to amend did not constitute the final judgment in this case. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.