Case Name: James Jefferson KENNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. MERCER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-11
Citations: 465 F. App'x 742
Docket Number: No. 11-15538
Parties: James Jefferson KENNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. MERCER; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
James Jefferson KENNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. MERCER; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-15538.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 11, 2012.
James Jefferson Kenner, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Neva da Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, 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
Nevada state prisoner James Jefferson Kenner appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging, among others claims, denial of due process. 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 Kenner's due process claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he received timely written notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard before being found guilty of violating prison rules at a disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (explaining due process owed to prisoners facing a disciplinary charge).
Kenner's "statement of facts" in response to the appellees' answering brief is construed as his reply brief.
Kenner's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Issues not expressly addressed in Ken-ner's opening brief are waived. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.