Case Name: Robert Lawrence WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve KEEFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 860
Docket Number: No. 16-15661
Parties: Robert Lawrence WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve KEEFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 860–861

Head Matter:
Robert Lawrence WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve KEEFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15661
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Robert Lawrence Williams, Pro Se
Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Chartered, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Steve Keefer, City of Sparks, Sparks Police Dept., Sparks Chief of Police
Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Chartered, Reno, NV, Chester H. Adams, Esquire, Sparks City Attorney’s Office, Sparks, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Keating, Fye, Scott Hale-Byron
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Robert Lawrence Williams appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oyama v. Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force used during his arrest was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (setting forth the objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations).
AFFIRMED.
diSp0Siti0n not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.