Sweet

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael Allen Sweet, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the magistrate judge’s summary judgment for the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by placing him in restrictive housing without a hearing, and by subjecting him to camera surveillance in the shower as a pretrial detainee at Fresno County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim and summary judgment, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The magistrate judge properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Sweet’s due process claim. Sweet failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to dispute that he was placed in administrative segregation based on his classification status, not as a punitive measure and, therefore was not entitled to a hearing. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (holding that there is no right to due process prior to re-classification to a higher level of security for non-punitive administrative reasons); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 , 88 n.…