Case Name: Robert WOOTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-30
Citations: 372 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 09-15560
Parties: Robert WOOTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
Robert WOOTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15560.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 30, 2010.
Robert Wooten, Stockton, CA, pro se.
Jeffrey I. Bedell, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Robert Wooten appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violated his First and Tenth Amendment rights by virtue of a California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss. Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 770 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
We do not consider Wooten's arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.2007).
Wooten'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.