Case Name: Roderick SERRANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant, and Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-24
Citations: 71 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 02-56971; D.C. No. CV-02-01954-DT
Parties: Roderick SERRANO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant, and Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Roderick SERRANO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant, and Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 02-56971. D.C. No. CV-02-01954-DT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2003.
Decided July 24, 2003.
Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Serrano's request for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roderick Serrano appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his ac tion alleging that various members of the California Department of Industrial Relations and his former employer, Graphics Research, Inc., violated his equal protection and due process rights in the course of denying his application for workers' compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co., 268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court lacked jurisdiction over Serrano's action because it sought review of a final state court judgment dismissing Serrano's petition for review of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's denial of his workers' compensation claim. See Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbos a, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a claim filed with a state agency that receives a final state court judgment is barred from federal district court review).
Serrano's contention that the magistrate and district judges exhibited bias by dismissing his action lacks merit. Adverse rulings alone do not support a finding that the judges were biased. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.