Case Name: Ronnell Ray HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. PETERSON, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-23
Citations: 672 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 15-17159
Parties: Ronnell Ray HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. PETERSON, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
Ronnell Ray HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. PETERSON, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17159
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 23, 2016
Ronnell Ray Hill, Pro Se
Martha P. Ehlenbach, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Ronnell Ray'Hill, 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 First Amendment right of access to the courts. 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 because Hill failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant 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 elements of an. access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).
The district court erred by adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations without considering Hill's timely objections. However, the error was harmless because the facts and arguments raised in the objections were set forth in the parties' summary judgment papers that the district court reviewed de novo before entering its order.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.