Thompson
Thompson v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Terry E.H. Thompson appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) and the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and Oregon State Correctional Institute (“OSCI”) on Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claims because *153 they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to DOC and OSCI on Thompson’s ADA and RA claims because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 454-55 (9th Cir.1996).
We affirm summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants named in Thompson’s complaint because he concedes that they were properly dismissed from the…