
    David E. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAREY, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15638.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 30, 2015.
    David E. Edwards, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Timothy Howard Delgado, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner David E. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant subjected him to an unconstitutional search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the visual, partially clothed search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriffs Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (explaining that “[w]hether a search is reasonable under the- Fourth Amendment requires a case-by-case balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails,” and setting forth factors for the court to consider (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s motion to strike a document because the document fell within the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A)(i); Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1224 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     