
    F. Joe YEAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-55999.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
    F. Joe Yeager, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Eugene P. Gordon, Esq., San Diego City-Attorney’s Office, Rachael A. Campbell, Butz Dunn & DeSantis, Kristen T. Dales-sio, Esq., Schwartz Semerdjian Haile Ballard & Cauley, Kenneth H. Moreno, Esq., Murchinson and Cumming, Philip E. Weiss, Esq., Weiss and Jones, Darlene Doman, San Diego Superior Court, Morris G. Hill, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, Ludlow S. Butler, Jr., Esq., Butler & Butler, James W. Alcantara, Esq., Alcantara, Frame & Forby, Michael Brian McDonnell, Esq., McDonnell & Romaker, F. Sigmund Luther, Esq., Law Office of F. Sigmund Luther, Lonnie Michael Wilson, Esq., Apollo Law Group, San Diego, CA, Stephen Allen Jamieson, Solomon, Salts-man & Jamieson, Playa Del Rey, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

F. Joe Yeager appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Third Amended Complaint on numerous grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Campos v. Nail, 940 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir.1991), and for failure to state a claim, Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir.2007).

We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint With Prejudice. Yeager’s contentions on appeal are unpersuasive.

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