Case Name: Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoff DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-08
Citations: 700 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 16-55901
Parties: Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoff DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoff DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55901
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 8, 2017
Jonathan Birdt, Attorney, Law Office of Jonathan W. Birdt, Porter Ranch, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Marina Gatti Porche, Office of the County Counsel, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom's Second Amendment claim because "the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public." Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.