Court Opinion

ID: 9956615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 17:01:10.898249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.146669
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON,                        No. 23-15269

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00651-JFM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF PHOENIX,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                  James F. Metcalf, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted March 26, 2024***

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process and state

law claims arising out of an injury that occurred on city property. We have

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wallis v. Princess

Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City deprived her

of any right secured by federal law without due process. See Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (setting forth requirements for procedural due process);

see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (“We conclude that the Due

Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing

unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                  23-15269