
    Steven Robert YOURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17368.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 25, 2012.
    Steven Robert Yourke, Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert Andres Bonta, Esquire, Deputy City, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, David B. Newdorf, Newdorf Legal, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. .
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Robert Yourke, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was illegally strip searched. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 414 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendants summary judgment on Yourke’s Fourth Amendment claim because Yourke failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his strip search, or the San Francisco policy authorizing it, was unreasonable. See Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 982 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (“[W]e conclude that San Francisco’s policy requiring strip searches of all arrestees classified for custodial housing in the general population was facially reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding the lack of individúalized reasonable suspicion as to the individuals searched.”); see also Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 1522-23, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (reasonable suspicion is not required before pre-trial detainees may be subjected to strip searches).

Yourke’s contentions concerning California Penal Code § 4030 are unpersuasive.

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