PETER LITTLE V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 14-15690 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER JAMES LITTLE, AKA Peter Little, AKA Peter J. Little, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15690 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02512-FJM Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. CHARLES L. RYAN, named as: Charles Ryan, Director of A.D.C. at 1601 W. Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85007; UNKNOWN RADECKI, Mr./ Director or A.C.I. for A.D.C. at 1601 E. Jefferson St., Phoenix, AZ 85007, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Peter James Little appeals from the district court’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prison employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Little forfeited his opportunity to appeal the denial of his motions to amend because he did not file any objections to the magistrate judge’s orders. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2003) (motion for leave to amend a complaint is a nondispositive order). Because we affirm, Little’s request to order reassignment to a different judge on remand, set forth in his replacement opening brief, is denied. Little’s request to dismiss the portions of his appeal addressing entry of summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 60) is granted. Little’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 60) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-15690
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
