NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, No. 15-16185
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01264-MCE-
DAD
v.
M. D. McDONALD, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s access-to-
courts claim because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an
access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s Fourth
Amendment claim because prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right of privacy
in their cells. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) (“Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison
cells”).
We cannot review Edwards’s contentions challenging the district court’s
judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of Edwards’s evidence on Edwards’s
claims arising from the confiscation of banned books because Edwards has failed
to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See
Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th
Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant
2 15-16185
trial transcripts).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16185