Chidley

MEMORANDUM. **

Damian McKinney appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the City of Hawthorne, Hawthorne police officers, and the United States Marshals Service violated his constitutional rights and defamed by seizing and later viewing a video of McKinney engaging in a possible sexual assault of an underage unconscious female. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Oliver v. Kelle, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that although Hawthorne Police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing items beyond the scope of the warrant, the officers were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting pursuant to a facially valid warrant and their actions were reasonable. See Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921 , 929-30 (9th Cir.2001).

Summary judgment on McKinney’s Fourth Amendment claim against the federal defendants was proper because uncontroverted affidavits showed that the federal officers did not participate in the seizure or subsequent viewing of the videotapes. See Jones v.…