Case Name: Kenn ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sig ROGICH; Ranger Building Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-20
Citations: 14 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 00-16604; D.C. No. 00-00508-PMP(RLH)
Parties: Kenn ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sig ROGICH; Ranger Building Corporation, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Kenn ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sig ROGICH; Ranger Building Corporation, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 00-16604.
D.C. No. 00-00508-PMP(RLH).
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2001.
Decided July 20, 2001.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kenn Andrews appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) his contract action against Rogich and Ranger Building Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.
Because the written agreement between Andrews and Rogich contained a clear intent not to be bound, the district court did not err in dismissing Andrews' action because no contract was formed. See Tropicana Hotel Corp. v. Speer, 101 Nev. 40, 692 P.2d 499, 502 (Nev.1985).
Andrews' contentions regarding discovery are considered and rejected.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.