Ronald Payne v. DIANA MARSTEINER, Judge, Individual and official capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD PAYNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DIANA MARSTEINER, Judge, Individual
and official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55296
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-10066-JWH-KK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Payne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and due process violations
stemming from workers’ compensation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55296
Contrary to Payne’s contentions, the magistrate judge did not exceed her
statutory authority during her involvement with this case. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (“While the
magistrate can dismiss complaints with leave to amend, the district court
necessarily must review that decision before dismissing the entire action.”). The
district judge properly conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, and Payne’s objections thereto, and entered final
judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --