United States v. 2020-08-12 | 19-15786 | MICHAEL GADDY V. M. TOWNSEND | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JOHN GADDY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

M. TOWNSEND, Appeals Coordinator; et
al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15786

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-01319-HSG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15786
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gaddy failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any
adverse action against him because of a grievance he filed to correct an erroneous
disciplinary record, which was in fact corrected. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment
retaliation claim in the prison context).
AFFIRMED.