Ashanti

MEMORANDUM **

Asida S. Ashanti, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act screening provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 1 Because Ashanti declined the opportunity to amend his complaint in the manner specified by the magistrate judge’s January 31, 2000 order, but chose to stand on his original complaint and obtain a judgment of dismissal, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Cf. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 , 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (prescribing this procedure). We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because prison officials were not required to tell Ashanti why he was subjected to random urinalysis, the complaint did not state a cognizable Fourth Amendment violation, and the district court properly dismissed this claim. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that even non-random drug testing in prison can be reasonable under Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 617-18 , 109 S.Ct. 1402 , 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), when based on legitimate…