Matthew Robert Young v. MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of SRCI;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW ROBERT YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of SRCI;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35695
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00479-PK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Matthew Robert Young appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with defendants’ handling of his incoming and outgoing
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-35695 2
mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary
judgment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Young’s claim
that defendants improperly opened a letter from an attorney’s office and replaced it
with a forgery because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the letter was a forgery or had been tampered with. See Cafasso, U.S.
ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To
survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of
specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young leave to
amend his complaint because Young failed to attach a proposed amended
complaint as required by local rule. See Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co., 582
F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1978) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and concluding
that it was “clearly discretionary” for court to deny motion to amend for failure to
attach proposed pleading as required by local rule).
Young’s contentions concerning the magistrate judge’s alleged bias and
allegedly improper rulings are unpersuasive.
The opening brief, answering brief, and defendants’ supplemental excerpts

-- 2 of 3 --

12-35695 3
of record are ordered filed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --