Case Name: Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. MCDONALD, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-22
Citations: 669 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 15-16185
Parties: Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. MCDONALD, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. MCDONALD, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16185
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 22, 2016
Brian Darnell Edwards, Pro Se.
Diana Esquivel, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Sea Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards's access-to-courts claim because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards's Fourth Amendment claim because prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right of privacy in their cells. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) ("Fourth Amendment's prohibi tion on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells").
We cannot review Edwards's contentions challenging the district court's judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of Edwards's evidence on Edwards's claims arising from the confiscation of banned books because Edwards has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.