Case Name: Henry B. GARNIER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maggie MILLER-STOUT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 171 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 05-35295; D.C. No. CV-04-05234-RBL
Parties: Henry B. GARNIER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maggie MILLER-STOUT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Henry B. GARNIER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maggie MILLER-STOUT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-35295.
D.C. No. CV-04-05234-RBL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
Henry B. Gamier, Jr., Airway Heights, WA, pro se.
Brian G. Maxey, Office of the Washington, Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, 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 Henry B. Gamier, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was suffered cruel and unusual punishment when foul air came through his cell's ventilation system. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017,1021 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The evidence presented showed that once defendants became aware of the fumes, they mounted a full investigation, and offered Garnier a cell transfer due to his sensitivity.
The district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants Miller-Stout, Agar, and Mason was proper because Garnier failed to allege that they knew of, or personally participated in, the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.