DEMITRIUS MCGEE V. CHAMBERLIN, No. 14-56173 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEMITRIUS McGEE, No. 14-56173 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01020-WQHJMA 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
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.
