Kulongoski

MEMORANDUM ***

Casey Lee Johnson, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and several constitutional amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

With respect to defendants Kulongoski, Reed, Meyers, de Haan, Morrow, Hill, and Belleque, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson attempted to base their liability on a respondeat superior theory. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because he failed *647 to raise a germine issue of material fact as to whether the remaining defendants denied him the benefit of any services, programs, or activities on the basis of his disability. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98…