Case Name: Calvin ROUSE, aka Abdur Rashid Khalif, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron VAN BOENING; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-27
Citations: 472 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 11-35200
Parties: Calvin ROUSE, aka Abdur Rashid Khalif, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron VAN BOENING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Calvin ROUSE, aka Abdur Rashid Khalif, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron VAN BOENING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35200.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 27, 2012.
Abdur Rashid Khalif, Connell, WA, pro se.
Andrea Vingo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Washington state prisoner Calvin Rouse, a.k.a. Abdur Rashid Khalif, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of his claims. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access to court); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (due process); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884, 888 (9th Cir.2008) (free exercise and RLUIPA); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1995) (retaliation).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants' motion to quash defendant Van Boening's deposition. See Laub v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2003) ("A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery....").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue defendants' summary judgment motion until plaintiff could conduct additional discovery because plaintiff failed to identify the specific facts that additional discovery would have revealed or how those facts would have been essential to defeat the summary judgment motion. See California ex rel. Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and setting forth relevant factors).
Plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.