Paul Navicky v. Aaron Gevatosky;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL NAVICKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AARON GEVATOSKY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35671
D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00567-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Paul Navicky appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v.
City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
JUN 6 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Navicky
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants did
not have an objectively reasonable basis for conducting a warrantless search of
Navicky’s home and whether the scope and manner of the search were
unreasonable. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (the
emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment applies where “(1) considering the
totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis
for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves
from serious harm; and (2) the search’s scope and manner were reasonable to meet
the need”).
We do not address Navicky’s argument, raised for the first time on
appeal, that defendants made misrepresentations in their affidavits in support of the
search warrant. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --