Case Name: Chet ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Assistant Warden Karl Stansel, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-25
Citations: 301 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 07-15304
Parties: Chet ADKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Assistant Warden Karl Stansel, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Chet ADKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Assistant Warden Karl Stansel, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-15304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
Chet Adkins, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Daniel P. Struck, Esq., Jennifer L. Hols-man, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chet Adkins, an Alaska convict housed in a private prison in Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the withholding of some of his mail by the private prison. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because, contrary to Adkins' contention, his transfer to an out-of-state private prison did not implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004).
We decline to consider Adkins' contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that new issue raised on appeal was waived by failure to raise it before the district court).
Adkins' remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.