Case Name: Leroy Edward BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 155 F. App'x 351
Docket Number: No. 04-17197
Parties: Leroy Edward BOYLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
Leroy Edward BOYLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-17197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
Leroy Edward Boyle, Apache Junction, AZ, pro se.
Nina J. Rivera, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Boyle’s motion for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leroy Edward Boyle appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his action against the United States Departure of Justice and "unknown federal agents" alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Orsay v. Dep't of Justice, 289 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Boyle's complaint because even accepting all Boyle's allegations as true, including his allegations that unknown federal agents assaulted him by electronic means or devices, Boyle's complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.