Case Name: Alden Lamont MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HAMMOND; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-21
Citations: 689 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 15-56027
Parties: Alden Lamont MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HAMMOND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Alden Lamont MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HAMMOND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56027
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 21, 2017
Alden Lamont Moore, Pro Se
Sylvie Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
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
Alden Lamont Moore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moore's claim for monetary damages because Moore failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (claims for monetary relief under Title II of the ADA require the plaintiff to establish intentional discrimination based on deliberate indifference, namely, "both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that . likelihood").
Moore has waived his right to appeal the district court's summary judgment on his claim for injunctive relief. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) ("A stipulation . is tantamount to a waiver of an issue for appeal") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We reject as meritless Moore's contentions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) ("Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of counsel").
Moore's motion regarding his personal property (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.