Case Name: Leslie K. WEAVER; Karla T. Podlech, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHADY COVE, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; Robert T. Anderson; James Johnson; George Bostic, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 03-35476
Parties: Leslie K. WEAVER; Karla T. Podlech, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHADY COVE, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; Robert T. Anderson; James Johnson; George Bostic, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Leslie K. WEAVER; Karla T. Podlech, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHADY COVE, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; Robert T. Anderson; James Johnson; George Bostic, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-35476.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2004.
Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
Thad M. Guyer, Esq., T.M. Guyer & Friends, Medford, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Bruce L. Mowery, Esq., Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge.
The Honorable Louis H. Poliak, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Weaver and Podlech have pointed to no authority showing that any of the conduct to which they object violates the First Amendment, and the Title VII "hostile environment" cases to which they cite are not analogous and do not support their claim. In addition, the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the defendant officials was appropriate since the officials violated no clearly-established rights.
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.
. See Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 831 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir.1987) (affirming summary judgment because appellant's novel argument was unsupported); Shell Oil Co. v. Train, 585 F.2d 408, 413 (9th Cir.1978) (rejecting appellant's novel theory as unsupported by any authority).
. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).