Case Name: Richard William HARRINGTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LAMPBERT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-24
Citations: 19 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 01-35298; D.C. No. CV-00-00020-JE
Parties: Richard William HARRINGTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LAMPBERT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HUG, PREGERSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Richard William HARRINGTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LAMPBERT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-35298.
D.C. No. CV-00-00020-JE.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2001 .
Decided Sept. 24, 2001.
Before HUG, PREGERSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). We construe Harrington's "Response to Oral Argument” as a request for oral argument and a request for appointment of counsel and deny the requests.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oregon state inmate Richard William Harrington, Jr., appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998).
Harrington was given an opportunity to amend and advised of the deficiencies of his complaint and how to cure the deficiencies, yet he failed to do so. Therefore, we affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's "Findings and Recommenda tion and Order" filed on September 13, 2000, and adopted by the district court in its order filed on December 22, 2000.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.