Gregory Lynn Norwood v. M. ROBINSON, Correctional Officer;

13-15163Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit29 de mai. de 2014

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15163
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00172-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials confiscated his property in retaliation for filing a grievance. We
FILED
MAY 29 2014
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 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry,
584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Norwood
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the confiscation of
his property was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id.
at 1269 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference should be afforded to
prison officials in evaluating proffered “legitimate penological” goals); see also
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.
2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative
evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).
Norwood’s contention that the applicable prison regulation requiring
confiscation of his property was “illegal” is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
13-15163 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.