N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LOREN C HR ISTOPHER TAR AB OC HIA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF ASTORIA, OR EGON; TW O UNNAM ED ASTORIA POLIC E OFFIC E R S, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-35723 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01542-M O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 15, 2013 ** B e fore : SILVERM AN, B EA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s Lore n C hristophe r Ta

ra boc hia a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a l le ging tha t de fe nda nts viola te d 

# FIL ED JAN 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).his Fourth Am e n dm e n t rights by de ta ining him without re a s ona ble suspic ion to be lie ve tha

t he wa s e nga ge d in c rim i na l a c tivity . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo, Die tric h v . J ohn Asc uaga’s N

ugge t , 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th C ir. 2008) , and we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Ta ra boc hia fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts ha d re a s ona ble suspic ion to be lie v e tha t he wa s in viola

tion of thec onditions of his probat ion. Se eRamire

z v . C ity of Bue na Park

, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th C ir. 2009) (re a sona

ble suspic ion re quire s “ c onside ra bly le ss tha n proof of wrongdoing by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e ,” and a n offic e r ne e d only

“ be a ble to a rtic ulate fa c t s c re ating grounds to suspe c t tha t c rim i na l a c t ivity

m a y be a foot” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se e also State v . Hine r , 246 P.3d 35, 37-38 (Or. C t. App. 2010) (“ T he a

uthority to a

rre s t a probat ione r for viola

t ion of a probation c ondition im

plie s the a

uthority to stop pe rsons re a sona bly suspe c te d of viola

ting that probation c ondition.” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ta ra boc hia ’ s m otion for a

c o ntinua nc e of sum

m ary judgm e nt to c o nduc t furthe r disc ove ry be c a use Ta ra boc hia did not show tha

t a dditiona l disc ove ry

would ha ve pre c lude d sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Tatum v . C i ty & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 441 F.3d 1090, 1 1 - 3 5 7 2 3 21100 (9th C ir. 2006) (se tting forth sta n da rd of re vie wan d c ontinua nc e re quire m e nts). W e re je c t Ta ra boc hia ’ s c onte ntions re ga rding de fe nda

nts’ a lle ge d atte m

pts to a s sa ssina

te his c ha ra c t e r. Se e C

ity of Long Be ac h v . Standard Oil C o. , 46 F.3d 929, 936 (1995) (re c ogniz ing tha t re ve rsa l for e vide ntia

ry e rrors “ will not be gran te d unle ss pre

judic e is shown” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 3 5 7 2 3 3