N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES JEFFER SON KENNER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R UB EN VIDAUR

R I, C .O.; e t

a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15481 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00784-R C J-VPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R o b e rt C live Jone s, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r Jam e s Je ffe rson Ke nne r a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing due proc e s s viola

tions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Valde

z v . Rose nbaum , 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd m ay a ffirm 

# FIL ED APR 14 2014 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).on a

ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord, J

ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc areSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ke nne r’ s due proc e s s c la im

c onc e rning his plac e m e nt in a dm inistra tive se gre gat ion pe nding disc iplina ry c ha rge s be c a use Ke nne r fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r his pla c e m e nt ga ve rise to a

prote c te d libe rty inte re st wa

rranting due proc e ss prote c tions. Se eSandin v . C onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (a dm inistra

tive se gre gation by

itse lf doe s not im

plic ate a prote c te d libe rty

inte re st be c a use it doe s not im

pose an aty

pic a l a nd signific a

nt ha rdship on the

inm ate in re lation to the

ordina ry inc ide nts of prison life ); se ealso C ousins v . Loc k

y e r , 568 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th C ir. 2009) (fa ilure to c om p ly with prison re gula

tions doe s not a m ount to a

c o nstitutiona

l viola tion). Sum m a ry judgm e nt on Ke nne r’ s due proc e s s c l a im c onc e rning his c onfine m e nt to disc iplina ry se gre g ation a

nd loss of good tim

e c re dits wa s prope r be c a use , e ve n a ssum ing Ke nne r ra ise d a tria ble disputea s to whe the r the se re stra i nts ga

ve rise to a

prote c te d libe rty

inte re st, he re c e ive d

a ll theproc e ss tha

t he wa s due . Se e W

olff v . Mc Donne ll , 418 U.S. 539, 564-67 (1974) (se tting forth due proc e s s re quire m e nts be fore im posing sa nc tions im

plic ating a prisone r’ s libe rty inte re s t); K

oe nig v . Vanne l l i , 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th C ir. 1992) (prison offic ia ls 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 1 2m ay

lim i t a n inm at e ’ s e fforts to de fe nd him se l f if the y hav e a le gitim ate pe nologic a l re a son). W e do not c onside r issue s re ga rding thedism issa l of Ke nne r’ s c o nspira c y and Eighth Ame n dm e nt c l a im s be c a use the y are not supporte d by argum e nt. Se e Am. Int’l Ente rs., Inc . v . FDIC, 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.5 (9th C ir. 1993). Ke nne r’ s c onte ntions re ga rding de fe nda

nts’ a lle ge d

fa ilure to give him Miranda warnings a

n d the ir a lle ge d de c ision to plac e him in the e quiva le nt of solita ry c onfine m e nt a

re unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 4 8 1 3