Rose

MEMORANDUM

Robert Rose appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Proceeding pro se, he alleged that defendants Strubeck and Hodge, two Montana probation officers, subjected him to probation conditions that were unauthorized and improper, damaging him in several respects. The facts are known to the parties and are not repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision that affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Rose has not appealed the district court’s dismissal of his claims against defendants Tom Scott and Montana Department of Corrections, rulings grounded in prosecu-torial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We read liberally Rose’s complaint and other papers he filed in the district court, affording him as an incarcerated pro se civil rights plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir.1988). We find no merit, however, in the several grounds he asserts for reversing the district court’s well-reasoned summary judgment ruling.

Rose’s lawsuit filed on November 3, 2003, alleged that Strubeck and Hodge, in supervising him, knew…