Durrell

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Paul C. Durrell appeals pro se the district court’s judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was assaulted by two corrections officers during transport to his cell in the disciplinary segregation unit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Troutt v. Colorado W. Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir.2001). We review the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment de novo, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Durrell contends the district court erred by dismissing his claim alleging that Officer Henning failed to investigate his complaint that he was assaulted. We disagree. The district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim because Durrell did not raise a triable issue as to Henning’s personal involvement in, or causal connection to, the alleged use of excessive force. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989).

Contrary to Durrell’s arguments on appeal, the record supports the district court’s conclusion…