
    Will Moses PALMER, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.R. SALAZAR; E. Sanchez, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Will Moses Palmer, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Will Moses Palmer, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Palmer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was improperly denied procedural protections during his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 564-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (describing minimum procedural due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings and noting that the “full panoply of rights” due a defendant in criminal proceedings does not apply).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.2010) (“Qualified immunity confers upon officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review).

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