Ronnell Hill v. T. Peterson , 672 F. App'x 720 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNELL RAY HILL, No. 15-17159
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
T. PETERSON, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ronnell Ray Hill, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of
his First Amendment right of access to the courts. 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 because Hill failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant caused an actual
injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55
(1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury
requirement).
The district court erred by adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations without considering Hill’s timely objections. However, the error
was harmless because the facts and arguments raised in the objections were set
forth in the parties’ summary judgment papers that the district court reviewed de
novo before entering its order.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17159