Unpublished Disposition, 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
John F. CHOW, M.D., and Ester Chow, dba Healing ArtPharmacy, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 1988.* Decided April 8, 1988.
Before BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The Chows appeal pro se from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of all named defendants. The Chows assert various civil rights violations as well as a claim based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1982 & Supp.IV 1986).
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). For the reasons stated by the magistrate in his report and recommendation, as approved and adopted by the district court, we hold that the Chows have failed to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
The brief filed by appellees' counsel, Cyrus J. Lemmon, Esq., of Bruggeman, Smith and Peckham, did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, because it contained no argument. Mr. Lemmon is an attorney and therefore an officer of the court; as such he has certain responsibilities to assist the proper functioning of the judicial system. Particularly because appellants are proceeding pro se, Mr. Lemmon's failure to brief the case has done the court a disservice. We admonish counsel to consider more carefully his responsibilities as an officer of the court in the future.