Demitrius McGee v. Chamberlin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-56173 · 2015-04-16 · Unpublished

Demitrius McGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMBERLIN, M.D.; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Raymond C. Fisher (author), Richard C. Tallman, Jacqueline H. Nguyen

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEMITRIUS McGEE, No. 14-56173 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01020-WQH- JMA v. CHAMBERLIN, M.D.; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Demitrius McGee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with his medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action as barred by * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the applicable statute of limitations, Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

The district court dismissed McGee’s claims as untimely, and he has failed to make a showing that his claims were not time-barred or entitled to any tolling beyond that afforded by the district court. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims; two-year tolling period due to incarceration). Contrary to McGee’s contention, the record shows that he had adequate notice of the grounds upon which his claims were dismissed.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-56173