FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 13 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLEEN CRYSTAL LINFORD, No. 15-35758
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00194-BLW
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2017**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District
of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Karleen Linford appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the
United States in this Federal Tort Claims Act case. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Szajer v.
City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011), viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to Linford to determine whether any triable issue of fact exists
and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant law, Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We affirm.
Linford asserted a negligence claim arising out of injuries she sustained while
riding an all-terrain vehicle across a cattle guard on national forest land in Idaho.
There is no dispute that, absent willful and wanton conduct, the United States is
entitled to immunity under Idaho’s recreational use statute, Idaho Code § 36-1604(d),
because it allowed Linford to use the national forest land for recreational purposes
without charge. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the United
States engaged in willful and wanton conduct. The Forest Service’s construction
and maintenance of the cattle guard constitutes, at most, mere negligence.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.