Franz Wakefield v. Apple, Inc., et al

Filing 5

Order filed (RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY S. BYBEE and SANDRA S. IKUTA) A review of the record and the response to the August 5, 2010 order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (affirming dismissal as frivolous of clearly baseless factual contentions); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. [7472756] (WL)

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANZ A. WAKEFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

SEP 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

No. 10-16550
D.C. No. 5:09-cv-05420-JW
Northern District of California,
San Jose

APPLE, INC.; et al.,
ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.

Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
A review of the record and the response to the August 5, 2010 order to show
cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to
require further argument. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)
(affirming dismissal as frivolous of clearly baseless factual contentions); see also
United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating
standard for summary disposition).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.

SVG/Pro Se