NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH KEITH RENANDER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

TODD THOMAS; BENJAMIN GRIEGO;

JODI BRADLEY; D. SIGMON; NERO,

First name unknown, named as Sgt. Nero;

ROMERO, First name unknown, named as

Sgt. Romero; M. OLSEN; RIELAND,

First name unknown; ALIMAN, First

name unknown; HILL, First name

unknown; CORE CIVIC OF AMERICA, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15169

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04760-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 28, 2023 ** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

SEP 29 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Joseph Renander appeals from the final dismissal of his prisoner civil rights

action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the

summary judgment and dismissal of claims in the screening order de novo. 

Johnson v. Ryan, 55 F.4th 1167, 1179 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim that Defendant Aleman violated his

rights by reading his legal mail; thus summary judgment was proper. At a bare

minimum, plaintiff’s grievance had to be specific enough to put the prison on

notice of the nature of the alleged wrong to allow the prison to correct the problem. 

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). The completed grievance

cited by plaintiff did not put the prison on notice of the claim that Defendant

Aleman or any other officer read legal mail in plaintiff’s presence during mail

delivery. See id. at 1121 (holding that a grievance requesting a ladder to access the

top bunk did not exhaust a claim that prison staff disregarded an order assigning

the prisoner to a lower bunk). Defendants came forward with evidence to establish

that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available remedies for his claim and that he was

able to file and complete grievances, including the grievance related to another

claim in the case. Plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence to support his

arguments that the grievance system was effectively unavailable to him or that

officials prevented him from filing his grievance for this claim. See Albino v.

2
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard and

parties’ burdens) (en banc). 

The district court did not err by dismissing claims, without prejudice, in the

screening order. The district court properly required that plaintiff link his claims to

named defendants and allege facts to support all of the elements of his claims. See

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden

of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the

conduct of which he complaints.”); Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs., 637 F.2d 1350,

1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (section 1983 causation “can be established by showing that

the defendant personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights, or

caused such a deprivation to occur”). The district court was not required to accept

conclusory allegations that lacked supporting facts. Sprewell v. Golden State

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 We decline to consider plaintiff’s challenges to the magistrate judge’s

nondispositive orders, including the orders denying leave to amend for failure to

comply with procedural rules and striking plaintiff’s untimely motion for partial

summary judgment. A party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate

judge’s nondispositive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) forfeits

appellate review of the order. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170,

3
1174 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff forfeited his right to challenge the magistrate

judge’s orders on appeal by not objecting to those orders in district court.

To the extent that plaintiff argues that the district judge and magistrate

judge were biased, his argument lacks merit. Bias arises “from an extrajudicial

source not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.”

Leslie v Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The judges did not exhibit bias by identifying plaintiff’s convictions,

which were part of the record and relevant to the alleged claims. Moreover, the

fact that the judges ruled against plaintiff or that plaintiff believed that the judges

misapplied the law does not establish bias. Id.

AFFIRMED.

4