Graves

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prison Richard Anthony Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and Eighth Amendment violations arising out of his placement in segregation pending a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Jenkins’s due process claim because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his week-long placement in segregation resulted in any deprivations or changes in the conditions of confinement constituting an “atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” that would give rise to a protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447, 449 (9th Cir.2000) (where there is no protected liberty interest, there is no due process claim, substantive or procedural).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Jenkins’s Eighth Amendment…