Case Name: Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 08-35281
Parties: Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 839–839

Head Matter:
Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-35281.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
Keith L. Nash, Shelton, WA, pro se.
Amanda M. Migchelbrink, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith L. Nash, a former prisoner in Washington, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nash's "access to the courts" claims because Nash failed to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of the defendants' conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nash's retaliation claim because Nash failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants enforced prison rules in retaliation for Nash engaging in protected conduct. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005).
Nash's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Because Nash filed his motion for reconsideration more than ten days after judgment entered, and did not file a separate notice of appeal as to the order denying this motion, we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal of the order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). Accordingly, we dismiss Nash's appeal from that order.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.