122 F.3d 1073
Jefferlene PIERRO; Alfred L. Pierro, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
County of SACRAMENTO; Sacramento County Public Works
Department; Stan Bowers; Valley Construction
Company; Gene Bergst, Vernon Von
Ferber, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Lee B. Elam; Warren H. Harada; Donald L. Schultze, Douglas
M. Fraleigh, Defendants.
No. 95-16655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 1997,**
Decided Aug. 28, 1997.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Milton L. Schwartz, District Judge, Presiding
Before SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Jefferlene and Alfred Pierro appeal pro se the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) in favor of defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
After a de novo review, see Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.1996), we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion filed on July 31, 1995.
Because the Pierros raise contentions for the first time on appeal, we decline to address them. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 624 (9th Cir.1988).
AFFIRMED.