David E. Edwards v. CLAREY, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID E. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLAREY, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15638
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01725-TLN-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David E. Edwards appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant
subjected him to an unconstitutional search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips
FILED
JUL 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the visual, partially
clothed search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Byrd v.
Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
(explaining that “[w]hether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
requires a case-by-case balancing of the need for the particular search against the
invasion of personal rights that the search entails,” and setting forth factors for the
court to consider (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s motion
to strike a document because the document fell within the public records exception
to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(i); Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co.
v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1224 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of
review).
AFFIRMED.
14-15638 2

-- 2 of 2 --