Case Name: Catherine HILL, individually and as heir of Dillon M. Hill and as special administrator of the Estate of Dillon M. Hill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-05
Citations: 705 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 16-16260
Parties: Catherine HILL, individually and as heir of Dillon M. Hill and as special administrator of the Estate of Dillon M. Hill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 705
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Catherine HILL, individually and as heir of Dillon M. Hill and as special administrator of the Estate of Dillon M. Hill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16260
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 17, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed December 5, 2017
Samuel B. Benham, Esquire, Attorney, Steven M. Burris, Attorney, Law Offices of Steven M. Burris, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Kathleen A. Wilde, Esquire, Attorney, Marquis & Aurbach, LeAnn Sanders, Trial Attorney, Shirley Blazich, Michael McLoughlin, Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Catherine Hill appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.