
    Fred Leon JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROWLETT, Correctional Sgt.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15514.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 31, 2010.
    Fred Leon Jackson, Jr., Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    No Appearance for R. Rowlett, Correctional Sgt.
    Anthony Paul O’Brien, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Jim Sobolewski, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fred Leon Jackson, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants conspired to discipline him in retaliation for filing a grievance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002). We may affirm on any grounds supported by the record. ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jackson’s action as against Correctional Sergeant Rowlett because Rowlett was not served before his death and his estate was not served. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s retaliation claim because Jackson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were aware of Jackson’s grievance complaining of conduct by Row-lett when they disciplined him. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a retaliation claim).

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