Case Name: Melvin JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don STRANGIO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 207 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 05-15493
Parties: Melvin JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don STRANGIO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 788–788

Head Matter:
Melvin JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don STRANGIO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-15493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006 .
Filed Nov. 15, 2006.
Melvin Jones, Jr., Modesto, CA, pro se.
Patrick Michael Callahan, Esq., Stephen Brooks, Esq., Gordon & Rees, LLP, Louis H. Castoria, Esq., Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Theodore C. Zayner, Forge and Zayner, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Melvin Jones, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a custody dispute over his daughter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm because Jones presents no issue of fact that the defendants violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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.