Case Name: Maurice PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendan-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-09
Citations: 302 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 07-35845
Parties: Maurice PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendan-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Maurice PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendan-Appellee.
No. 07-35845.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
Filed Dec. 9, 2008.
Maurice Patrick, Spokane, WA. pro se.
J. Scott Miller, Esquire, Miller, Devlin & McLean, Spokane, WA, for Defendani>-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Maurice Patrick appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Williams and Associates and granting appellee's counterclaim, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and collection costs. Appellee has filed a motion for dismissal and for sanctions and terms. The motion is construed as a motion for summary affirmance of the district court's order.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004).
A review of the record and the briefs indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court properly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). After reviewing the admissible evidence submitted by the parties in connection with ap pellee's summary judgment motion, the district court correctly concluded that, pursuant to the contract between the parties and appellant's promissory note, appellant was required to pay Williams and Associates the fee for the teaming course he had attended, as well as court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of collection.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
Appellee's motion for sanctions is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.