Ronald Payne v. Diana Marsteiner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2022

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD PAYNE, No. 21-55296

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-10066-JWH-KK v.

MEMORANDUM* DIANA MARSTEINER, Judge, Individual and official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Payne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and due process violations stemming from workers’ compensation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Contrary to Payne’s contentions, the magistrate judge did not exceed her statutory authority during her involvement with this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (“While the magistrate can dismiss complaints with leave to amend, the district court necessarily must review that decision before dismissing the entire action.”). The district judge properly conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and Payne’s objections thereto, and entered final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55296