Case Name: Regina M. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-01
Citations: 209 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 06-15456
Parties: Regina M. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Regina M. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-15456.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 27, 2006.
Filed Dec. 1, 2006.
Regina M. Harrison, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Carie A. Torrence, City of North Las Vegas, Sean T. McGowan, North Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, North Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The motion for summary affirmance of this appeal is granted because 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); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that the district court was not required to give notice of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56's evidentiary standards to a non-incarcerated pro se litigant).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.