22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4aa,MEMORANDUM Deshawn Malone, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his right of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. Malone claimed that defendant failed to give him a partially completed complaint and supporting materials that Malone had requested from his personal property. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Malone failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (describing actual injury requirement); Jones, 393 F.3d at 936 (affirming summary judgment on access to courts claim on the ground that plaintiff did not show “injury, such as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge”). Malone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4dc,

MEMORANDUM

Deshawn Malone, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his right of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Malone claimed that defendant failed to give him a partially completed complaint and supporting materials that Malone had requested from his personal property. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Malone failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (describing actual injury requirement); Jones, 393 F.3d at 936 (affirming summary judgment on access to courts claim on the ground that plaintiff did not show “injury, such as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge”).

Malone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.