Sheehy

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Richard M. Sheehy appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to urinalysis drug tests even though he suffers from paruresis (“shy bladder syndrome”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court correctly granted summary judgment on Sheehy’s Fourth Amendment claim alleging illegal search and seizure. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Sheehy did not demonstrate that the drug testing was meant to harass or that the testing was unreasonable. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir.1997).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sheehy’s claim that he was denied access to court because he failed to demonstrate that his prison transfer hindered his ability to effectively prosecute his case. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Further, the record…