Case Name: Harry BORESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott REYNOLDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-13
Citations: 126 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 04-16744; D.C. No. CV-03-02897-VRW
Parties: Harry BORESS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Scott REYNOLDS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
Harry BORESS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Scott REYNOLDS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-16744.
D.C. No. CV-03-02897-VRW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 13, 2005.
Harry Boress, Spring Hill, FL, pro se.
David G. Knitter, Jay P. Menchaca, S. Scott Reynolds, Jeffrey L. Daniel, Gaw Van Male Smith Myers & Miroglio, Fair-field, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, 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
Harry Boress appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action against Bernard Boress, Ruth Soloff, and Scott Reynolds alleging abuse of process, fraud and conspiracy in violation of the RICO Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir.2003). We review for abuse of discretion the grant of a motion for sanctions. See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir.1998).
We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's order filed on August 5, 2004.
Appellant's remaining contentions lack merit.
Appellees' January 4, 2005 request for attorney fees is denied without prejudice to renewal in compliance with Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6.
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.