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:T4bc,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 36-3.24:T4ee,

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.