Corrigan

MEMORANDUM **

J. Louis Corrigan, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his rights were violated when a Las Vegas police officer and casino security guards took him into custody following a citizen’s arrest for pouring a drink on a casino patron’s head. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Summary judgment on Corrigan’s First Amendment claims was proper because Corrigan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his conduct constituted speech protected by the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) (holding that the Constitution does not protect expressive conduct characterized by violence).

Summary judgment on Corrigan’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims was proper because Corrigan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the citizen’s arrest was made without probable cause, see Marschall v. City of Carson, 86 Nev. 107 , 464 P.2d 494, 498 (Nev.1970), or whether Officer…