Case Name: Kevin James TEEMAN; Andrea Joy Lyons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-21
Citations: 684 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 16-35634
Parties: Kevin James TEEMAN; Andrea Joy Lyons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Kevin James TEEMAN; Andrea Joy Lyons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35634
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 21, 2017
Kevin James Teeman, Pro Se
Andrea Joy Lyons, Pro Se
Stefanie Jean Weigand, Attorney, Yakima County .Prosecuting Attorney, Corporate Counsel Division, Yakima, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin James Teeman and Andrea Joy Lyons appeal pro se from the district court's summary judgment in their. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the temporary, war-rantless removal of their children. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Teeman and Joy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the warrantless removal was impermissible. See Jones v. County of Los Angeles, 802 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015) (warrantless removal of a child is permissible if there is "reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the .time that would be required to obtain a warrant"); see also Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth requirements for supervisory and municipal liability under § 1983).
We reject as without merit Teeman and Lyons's contentions regarding the Freedom of Information Act.
We do not consider issues raised by Teeman and Lyons in their brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.