Harrison

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Wendell Harrison appeals the district court judgment in favor of Sheriff Carl Sparks, Kern County, Kern County Sheriff’s Department (collectively “Supervisory Defendants”) and Deputy Sheriff Brenda Waidelich on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

*335 The facts of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them below.

Harrison argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Supervisory Defendants. 1 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004).

Harrison’s theories of liability for the Supervisory Defendants’ official policies are unpersuasive. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The R.E.A.C.T. belt activation protocol taught to deputies was condoned by the R.E.A.C.T. belts’ manufacturer. Training deputies to use that protocol did not amount to deliberate indifference. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 , 109 S.Ct. 1197 , 103…