
    Peter James LITTLE, AKA Peter Little, AKA Peter J. Little, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, named as: Charles Ryan, Director of A.D.C. at 1601 W. Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85007; Unknown Radecki, Mr./ Director or A.C.I. for A.D.C. at 1601 E. Jefferson St., Phoenix, AZ 85007, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15690
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Field July 18, 2017
    Robert A. Caplen, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Peter James Little appeals from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prison employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Little forfeited his opportunity to appeal the denial of his motions to amend because he did not file any objections to the magistrate judge’s orders. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2003) (motion for leave to amend a complaint is a nondis-positive order).

Because we affirm, Little’s request to order reassignment to a different judge on remand, set forth in his replacement opening brief, is denied.

Little’s request to dismiss the portions of his appeal addressing entry of summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 60) is granted.

Little’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 60) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     