Case Name: Linwood Edward TRACY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 969
Docket Number: No. 09-15693
Parties: Linwood Edward TRACY, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David A. CLARK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 969–970

Head Matter:
Linwood Edward TRACY, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David A. CLARK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-15693.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr., Fallon, NV, for pro se.
David A. Clark, Esquire, State Bar of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, Jacob Nathaniel Sommer, Esquire, Law Office Of Jacob N. Sommer, LLC, Fallon, NV, Thomas Peter Beko, Esquire, Erickson, Thorpe & Swain-ston, Ltd., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Alvarado v. Table Mt. Ranchena, 509 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2007), and may affirm the district court's judgment on any ground supported by the record, Ctr. for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH) v. Office of U.S. Trade, 540 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tracy's action because he failed to allege how any of the defendants' actions in attempting to restrain him from the unauthorized practice of law led to a constitutional violation. See Arnold v. International Business Machines, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (explaining that a section 1983 plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.