Case Name: Donald Edward Larue JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, LLC, Delaware Prentice Hall Co. System, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-30
Citations: 240 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 06-35770
Parties: Donald Edward Larue JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, LLC, Delaware Prentice Hall Co. System, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 240
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
Donald Edward Larue JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, LLC, Delaware Prentice Hall Co. System, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-35770.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.
Filed Aug. 30, 2007.
Donald Edward Larue Johnson, Jr., Eagle Point, OR, pro se.
Duane A. Bosworth, II, Esq., Kevin H. Kono, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Donald Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his diversity action alleging defendant misappropriated his image by publishing his likeness in a book without his permission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action as time barred because Johnson failed to file it within the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1).
Contrary to Johnson's assertion, the district court did not err by using the term "pro se" to identify that Johnson represents himself without the assistance of a lawyer. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.1998) (using the term "pro se" to indicate self-representation).
Johnson's request for an injunction, filed with his opening brief, and for default judgment against HarperCollins, received on August 8, 2007, are moot, given that we affirm dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.