Case Name: Paul NAVICKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron GEVATOSKY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-06
Citations: 651 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 14-35671
Parties: Paul NAVICKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron GEVATOSKY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Paul NAVICKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron GEVATOSKY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-35671
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2016
Filed June 6, 2016
Paul Navicky, Corvallis, OR, Pro Se.
Robert Edward Franz, Jr., Attorney, Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr., Springfield, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Paul Navicky appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Navicky failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for conducting a warrantless search of Navicky's home and whether the scope and manner of the search were unreasonable. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment applies where "(1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm; and (2) the search's scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need").
We do not address Navicky's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that defendants made misrepresentations in their affidavits in support of the search warrant. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.