
    Richard MATHIS, Special Administrator of the Estate of Joe Robinson Mathis and as Trustee of the Joe Robinson Mathis and Eleanor Margherite Mathis Trust, aka Joe R. Mathis; James Mathis; Anthony Mathis, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF LYON, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, Defendant, and Richard Glover, individually, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-15912.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 2, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 4, 2015.
    Justin James Bustos, Esquire, John P. Desmond, Esquire, Gordon Silver, Brian Irvine, Jones Vargas, Reno, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Brian M. Brown, Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger a Professional Corporation Law Offices, Reno, NV, for Defendant.
    Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Brian R. Hardy, Esquire, Marquis Aur-bach Coffing, Las Vegas, NV, Keith L. Loomis, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Glover brings an interlocutory appeal, after cross-motions for summary judgment, from the district court’s decision denying him qualified immunity on Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and we affirm,.

In Mathis v. County of Lyon, 633 F.3d 877, 878-79 (9th Cir.2011), we previously considered whether the district court erred in holding, subsequent to a motion to dismiss, that Appellant Glover was not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We found no error when we held that “the failure to give notice and an opportunity to respond before Glover took the items from the house violated due process” and that “[t]he right to notice and hearing prior to a public official’s administrative taking of property is clearly established.” Id. at 879 (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82, 97, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) and United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993)).

Because it is an undisputed fact that Glover gave no notice or an opportunity for a pre-deprivation hearing before removing personal property from Plaintiffs-Appellees’ deceased father’s home, our decision in Mathis controls, and Glover is not entitled to qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     