Case Name: Cyrus Yoo KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL WAY POST OFFICE POSTMASTER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-07
Citations: 356 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 08-35380
Parties: Cyrus Yoo KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL WAY POST OFFICE POSTMASTER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Cyrus Yoo KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL WAY POST OFFICE POSTMASTER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-35380.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 7, 2009.
Cyrus Yoo Kim, I, Federal Way, WA, pro se.
Kayla Stahman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cyrus Yoo Kim appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a Bivens action for failure to state a claim. Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's decision whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction. Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kim's action because respondeat superior is inapplicable in a Bivens action. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1991).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction over Kim's state law tort claim once the Bivens claims were dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) ("The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.").
Kim's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.