Case Name: Vladimir YOVEV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 317 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 08-56329
Parties: Vladimir YOVEV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RYMER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 317
Pages: 693–693

Head Matter:
Vladimir YOVEV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56329.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2008.
Filed March 9, 2009.
Vladimir Yovev, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Heidi T. Salerno, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Gleam Olivia Davis, Esquire, AT & T Services Legal Department, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Gilligan, Esquire, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before RYMER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record and the opening brief 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 did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice this case for failure to prosecute. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1991).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.