Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16758.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 6, 2012.
    Patrick Funderburk, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(d)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patrick Funderburk, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when defendants failed to provide a sack lunch as part of the prison’s Ramadan meal schedule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Funderburk failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants substantially burdened his ability to practice his religion. See id. at 884-85 (Free Exercise Clause is only implicated when a prison practice burdens an inmate’s sincerely-held religious beliefs).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Funderburk’s untimely request for an extension of time to conduct discovery because Funderburk failed to show “good cause.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2002).

Funderburk correctly contends that he did not receive a summary judgment notice. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir.1988). However, we take judicial notice of the adequate warning Funderburk received in prior litigation. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 961-62.

Funderburk’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.