Case Name: Debra CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN & SANDERS; et al., Defendants- Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-18
Citations: 291 F. App'x 48
Docket Number: No. 08-15754
Parties: Debra CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN & SANDERS; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 48–48

Head Matter:
Debra CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN & SANDERS; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
No. 08-15754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
Filed Aug. 18, 2008.
Debra Carrigan, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Jonathan B. Owens, Karie N. Wilson, Alverson Taylor Mortensen Nelson & Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Debra Carrigan appeals the district court's judgment dismissing her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court reviews the district court's order de novo, and we affirm. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1990); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,1337 (9th Cir.1986).
Our review of the record and of appellant's response to this court's order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.