Narrative Opinion Summary
Gene A. Willis appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action by the district court, which was based on his failure to adhere to the statute of limitations. The appeal is under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the court reviews the matter de novo. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, referencing the precedent set in Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 998 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993). This disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's decision de novo, which means it considers the matter anew, giving no deference to the district court's conclusions.
Reasoning: The appeal is under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the court reviews the matter de novo.
Precedential Authority and Affirmationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's judgment was affirmed based on the precedent established by the Ninth Circuit in Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
Reasoning: The judgment of the district court is affirmed, referencing the precedent set in Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 998 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993).
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This judicial opinion is designated as non-precedential and is restricted from citation in future cases, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: This disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Statute of Limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court dismissed Gene A. Willis's action due to non-compliance with the statute of limitations applicable to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims.
Reasoning: Gene A. Willis appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action by the district court, which was based on his failure to adhere to the statute of limitations.