Robert Lawrence Williams v. Steve Keefer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVE KEEFER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15661
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00174-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Valerie P. Cooke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 11, 2017***
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Lawrence Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oyama v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15661
Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force used during
his arrest was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. See
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-97 (1989) (setting forth the objective
reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --