
    Paul Scott KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-15538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 6, 2011.
    Paul Scott Klein, Carson City, NV, pro se.
    Jill Carol Davis, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Paul Scott Klein appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the confiscation of his discounted magazine subscription renewal offer violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Klein’s First Amendment claim because Klein failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the contested prison regulations were rationally related to legitimate penological objectives. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Frost, 197 F.3d at 357; Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Klein’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because Klein failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact about whether he was deprived of a liberty or property interest. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.2003) (“Procedural due process claims require [ ] a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest[.]”).

Klein’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Klein’s motion filed on June 28, 2010 concerning his prison copy account is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

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