Case Name: Gregory MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 462 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 10-17308
Parties: Gregory MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 462
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
Gregory MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17308.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
Gregory Mitchell, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Brendan Maguire Kenny, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Gregory Mitchell, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his civil rights action. Mitchell alleged violations of his religious rights as a Muslim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the summary judgment de novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court correctly determined that Mitchell did not present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact in opposition to summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Although Mitchell pointed to his complaint, to declarations submitted in support of his opposition, and to voluminous attachments to those documents, as well as to a request for judicial notice, none of these shows a substantial burden on Mitchell's religious practice that meets the standard of RLUIPA or raises constitutional concerns. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 885, 889, 891. To the extent that Mitchell's opposition accurately points to the record, the assertions therein are conclusory. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005). He did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the asserted improper burdens on his religious practice.
Mitchell's remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Because Mitchell did not meet his burden in opposing summary judgment, the district court's decision should be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.1996).