Case Name: Dina PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-14
Citations: 58 F. App'x 364
Docket Number: No. 02-16795; D.C. No. CV-02-01260-GEB(PAN)
Parties: Dina PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 58
Pages: 364–364

Head Matter:
Dina PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-16795.
D.C. No. CV-02-01260-GEB(PAN).
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2003.
Decided March 14, 2003.
Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Padilla’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dina Padilla appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing her action, which alleged the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board deprived her of constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm because Padilla's action effectively seeks review of a final, state court decision. See Fontana Empire Center, LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2002) (federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final, state court judgments).
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.