Branden Earl Mahan v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

996 F.2d 1225 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Branden Earl MAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-17000. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 21, 1993. * Decided July 2, 1993. Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Branden Earl Mahan appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department ("Department") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review de novo. Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 884 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm. 3 A grant of summary judgment should be affirmed only if the evidence, read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Taylor v. List,…