FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, No. 13-15163
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00172-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
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
*
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).
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.
2 13-15163