Baity

INTRODUCTION

17 Plaintiff, a former California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials violated his right to due process. Defendants filed a 19 motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiff had the opportunity to file an opposition and 20 received a warning about the adverse consequences of not doing so, he has not opposed 21 defendants’ motion. For the reasons explained below, the motion for summary judgment is 22

GRANTED.

23

ANALYSIS

24

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

25 Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that 26 there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 27 judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Material facts are those which may affect the 28 outcome of the case. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for 1 a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 2 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of 3 identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and…