Case Name: Fred CHISOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLALLAM BAY CORRECTIONS SUPERINTENDENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 06-35263
Parties: Fred CHISOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CLALLAM BAY CORRECTIONS SUPERINTENDENT, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
Fred CHISOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CLALLAM BAY CORRECTIONS SUPERINTENDENT, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-35263.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Fred Chisom, Shelton, WA, pro se.
Kimberly Frinell, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Washington state prisoner Fred Chisom appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendant denied him access to prison showers and yard activity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court properly granted summary judgment, because Chisom failed to present evidence that defendant "acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against [him] based upon membership in a protected class." See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotations omitted) (discussing Equal Protection claim requirements).
Chisom's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Chisom's July 18, 2006 motion objecting to appellees' brief is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.