JEFFREY DRYDEN V. ANDREA BAREFIELD, No. 15-16304 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY L. DRYDEN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16304 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01896-RCJ-PAL MEMORANDUM* ANDREA E. BAREFIELD, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN Circuit Judges. Jeffrey L. Dryden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a school expulsion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, * 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). 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dryden’s action because Dryden failed to oppose defendant’s motion to dismiss. See id. (“[F]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); see also Dist. Nev. R. 7-2(d) (failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion). We do not consider Dryden’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s order striking Dryden’s third amended complaint because Dryden failed to file timely objections with the district court. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[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.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Dryden’s motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Dryden failed to file a new or amended notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that “an appeal specifically from the 2 15-16304 ruling on the [Rule 60(b)] motion must be taken if the issues raised in that motion are to be considered by the Court of Appeals”). Defendant’s motion to strike, filed on January 20, 2016, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 15-16304

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.