Adkins v. Corrections Corp.
This text of 301 F. App'x 710 (Adkins v. Corrections Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Chet Adkins, an Alaska convict housed in a private prison in Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the withholding of some of his mail by the private prison. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
[711]*711Summary judgment was proper because, contrary to Adkins’ contention, his transfer to an out-of-state private prison did not implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004).
We decline to consider Adkins’ contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that new issue raised on appeal was waived by failure to raise it before the district court).
Adkins’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
301 F. App'x 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-corrections-corp-ca9-2008.