Case Name: William D. DUNNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SMITH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-17
Citations: 486 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 11-16342
Parties: William D. DUNNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SMITH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
William D. DUNNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SMITH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16342.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
William D. Dunne, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S., USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that a prison policy restricting access to newspapers and magazines in the Special Housing Unit violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunne failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the policy is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 901 ("[A] regulation that impinges upon a prisoner's constitutional rights is valid if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor did Dunne raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was actually denied access to the law library and reading material. See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2009) (discussing the requirements of a Bivens action, including the deprivation of a federal right).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.