859 F2d 154 Boot v. P Zarko D

859 F.2d 154

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Kevin L. BOOT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kenneth P. ZARKO, Michael Donnelly; John D. Hoffard; Jim
Johnson; Dr. Marty Johnson; Jim McKeon; Vick
Shumaker; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-4411.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1988.*
Decided Sept. 15, 1988.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WALLACE and HUG, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Kevin L. Boot, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint against state officials, judges, attorneys, prison guards, and other individuals. Boot contends that (1) the district court lacked authority to dismiss the action because the order of discovery was signed by a magistrate, and (2) some defendants were not immune from liability. These contentions lack merit.

3

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636, a district court judge "may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court...." Id. at Sec. 636(b)(1)(a). Because the magistrate was authorized under that section to compel discovery, his order was valid. See United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 847 (1985). Further, the district court may dismiss an action for failure of a party to comply with court-ordered discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(c); Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987).

4

As to the remaining defendants, the district court did not err in dismissing them as immune, Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986); for lack of state action, Polk v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); and for failure to allege how these persons were personally involved in the constitutional violations. May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.1980).

5

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Appellant's motion for further explanation is denied

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3