MEMORANDUM**
Richard J. Glair appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defen
The district court properly found that Cabrera was protected by qualified immunity, because his actions during and after the traffic stop were reasonable when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). The district court properly held that Butts did not violate Glair’s rights, because Butts had no personal involvement in the events of which Glair complained. Glair’s contention that Butts is Hable based on his failure to train Cabrera fails because Glair did not estabHsh that Butts’s aUeged failure to train amounted to “deHberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the pohce come into contact.” See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded hearsay statements Glair made to the pohce department. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 927-28 (9th Cir.2000).
We deny Glair’s request that we take judicial notice of three cases not relevant to the issues here. See Carpenters S. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. Knight, 207 F.3d 1115, 1119 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
**.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.